The Trial-Tested Representation Your Case Requires
Anti-concurrent causation clauses and denied insurance claims
December 14, 2021
Insurance companies are pretty specific about wanting their policies to be paid in full and on time – but they’re not always the best about doing the same when there’s a claim.
There are many different ways that an insurance company may try to wiggle out of paying up, and one of these is through the use of anti-concurrent causation policies.
What does concurrent causation mean in an insurance claim?
At its most basic, “concurrent causation” is a term used when there’s a loss that comes from more than one source – usually one that’s covered and one that isn’t.
Under concurrent causation, when the damage from one source can’t really be separated from the other, the whole insurance claim is valid. This can lead to better coverage for the property owner if both claims are honored. For example, if you have flooding in your home after wind damage breaks out your windows, you may want to seek benefits from both your regular homeowners policy and your flood insurance.
Naturally, insurance companies don’t care for that idea. Anti-concurrent causation clauses are now a common feature in insurance policies, and insurance companies say that they’re necessary to avoid paying out twice on one claim or paying more than is fair.
However, these clauses can be misapplied in ways that property owners don’t expect to deny claims. Your insurance company may deny coverage based on the clause alone, or by claiming that one of the causes of your damage is predominant and uncovered by your policy.
Navigating the ins and outs of an insurance claim isn’t easy. There’s a lot at stake, and the insurance company probably won’t give up a dollar without a fight. Don’t try to handle abad-faith insurance issue without experienced guidance.