Samantha Holland
Partner
Commercial Litigation UK Team Leader and UK Head of Insurance/W&I
Article
7
In March 2023, we reported on the High Court decision in Allianz Insurance plc v University of Exeter, in which the court:
The Court of Appeal has now dismissed the university's appeal in University of Exeter v Allianz Insurance PLC and confirmed that the damage was excluded from the applicable insurance policy.
Notably, Lord Justice Coulson commented that while "unguided gut feeling" may suggest that damage caused by the controlled detonation of a bomb in 2021 – 76 years after the end of WWII – was not "occasioned by war", the approach to legal causation is however "more nuanced" and is subject to "specific rules and principles".
We examine the Court of Appeal's decision, as well as some of the specific rules and principles applied, in more detail below.
Our earlier article summarises the background facts in full. In brief:
The general insuring clause of the policy was structured such that no liability to indemnify in respect of loss "occasioned by war" ever arose.
The issue on appeal was whether the loss and damage caused in 2021 by the controlled detonation of the bomb was "occasioned by war" and therefore excluded from the scope of the university's cover.
Lord Justice Coulson set out the general principles of the "proximate cause" rule, confirming that:
The Court of Appeal held that in this case, there were two concurrent causes of the loss and damage, which were of "approximately equal efficacy":
The loss was made inevitable by the "combination of these two causes", and neither would have caused the loss without the other.
The court dismissed the argument advanced by counsel for the university that the detonation was a much more potent cause of the damage than the dropping of the bomb, due to the failure of the intended LOT detonation and the consequent release of the bomb's full explosive load.
The court explained that the key question was whether the dropping of the bomb "led inexorably" to the damage through an ordinary series of events or whether there was a "subsequent abnormal event" – such as an act of negligence – that broke the chain of causation. In this case, there was no suggestion of any negligence: the intervening acts of the detonation squad were normal and reasonable responses and did not negatively affect the causal connection.
Further, counsel for the university had not advanced any argument on appeal that the rule in Wayne Tank did not apply, and there was no wording in the policy to oust the rule.
Applying that rule, the court, therefore, found that since one of the concurrent causes of the damage – being the act of war in 1942 – was expressly excluded from cover under the policy, the exclusion must prevail.
The Court of Appeal decision confirms that the insurers were entitled to reject the university's claim. The dropping of the bomb in 1942 was one of two concurrent causes of "approximately equal efficacy" (although the court did not go so far as to conclude, as the court of first instance did, that it was the sole cause of the damage).
Had the policy or the War Exclusion clause been worded differently, for example, to exclude the operation of the concurrent causes rule, this may have resulted in a different outcome.
If you have any questions about this article, please contact Sam Holland or Jatinder Sahota.
Footnote
[1] As set out in Wayne Tank and Pump v Employers Liability Assurance Corp. [1974] QB 57 and applied in FCA v Arch Insurance UK Ltd. and Others [2021] UKSC 1.
NOT LEGAL ADVICE. Information made available on this website in any form is for information purposes only. It is not, and should not be taken as, legal advice. You should not rely on, or take or fail to take any action based upon this information. Never disregard professional legal advice or delay in seeking legal advice because of something you have read on this website. Gowling WLG professionals will be pleased to discuss resolutions to specific legal concerns you may have.