Anti-Concurrent Causation

Example

“The homeowner's flood damage claim was denied due to anti-concurrent causation language because both wind (covered) and flooding (excluded) contributed to the roof collapse.”

Memory Tip

Think 'one bad apple spoils the bunch' - if any excluded cause is involved, it can spoil coverage for the entire claim.

Why It Matters

This clause can significantly impact claim outcomes, potentially leaving policyholders without coverage they expected to have. Understanding this language helps consumers make informed decisions about additional coverage needs and policy selection.

Common Misconception

Many policyholders believe that if any covered peril contributed to their loss, they should receive some coverage. However, anti-concurrent causation clauses can eliminate all coverage when both covered and excluded perils are involved, regardless of which was more significant.

In Practice

During a hurricane, strong winds (covered peril) damage a home's roof, but subsequent storm surge flooding (excluded peril) causes additional interior damage. The total loss is $75,000, with $25,000 from wind damage and $50,000 from flood damage. Due to anti-concurrent causation language, the insurer denies the entire $75,000 claim, not just the flood portion, because both perils worked together to create the overall damage.

Etymology

The term combines 'anti' (against), 'concurrent' (happening at the same time), and 'causation' (the act of causing), describing clauses that work against coverage when multiple causes occur simultaneously.

Common Misspellings

Related Terms

More in insurance

Other insurance terms you should know

See Also