Insurance
Apr. 14, 2016
High court needs to resolve insurance proximate cause issues
Unless the California Supreme Court steps in, two appellate decisions are evidently in conflict with respect to certain aspects of the efficient proximate cause doctrine.
Rex Heeseman
JAMS
555 W 5th St Fl 32
Los Angeles , CA 90013-1055
Phone: (213) 253-9772
Fax: (213) 620-0100
Email: rheeseman@jamsdar.com
Stanford Univ Law School
Rex Heeseman retired from the Los Angeles Count Superior Court bench in 2014. He is at JAMS, Los Angeles. Besides speaking at various MCLE programs, he co-authors The Rutter Group's practice guide on "Insurance Litigation." From 2002 to 2015, he was an adjunct professor at Loyola Law School.
An insurance claim sometimes involves a loss resulting from two causes, one of which is not covered, e.g., damage caused in part by negligent construction (a covered peril) and in part by soil subsidence (an excluded peril). This dichotomy often presents a challenge. See Reichert v. State Farm Gen. Ins. Co., 212 Cal. App. 4th 1543, 1554 (2012) (causation "has bedeviled insurance law in California courts for over a hundred years since the 1906 San Francisco earthquake").
Insu...
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In