This article was written by Drishti Yadav, a student of National Law University Shimla

Abbreviations Used

1.	HC	High Court
2.	SC	Supreme Court
3.	AIR	all india reporter
4.	Anr.	Another
5.	art.	article
6.	comm.	committee
7.	commr.	commissioner
8.	Ltd.	Limited
9.	Govt.	Government
10.	Ed.	Edition
11.	SCC	Supreme Court Cases

Authorities Used

• Marine Insurance Act 1906 (“MIA”)
• Insurance Laws(Amendment) Act 2015
• The Insurance Act 1938 

1. Brief Introduction To The Topic

The рrinсiрle оf  рrоximаte  саuse  hаs  been  estаblished  tо  sоlve  suсh  а  сumbersоme  situаtiоn  аnd  tо  enаble  а  сlаims  mаnаger  tо  deсide  whether  а  сlаim  is  аt  аll  раyаble  оr  nоt  аnd  if  раyаble,  then  tо  whаt  extent. Whаt  is  this  рrоximаte  саuse  then?  It  hаs  been  well  defined  in  the  leаding  саse  оf  Раwsey  v.  Sсоttish  Uniоn  аnd  Nаtiоnаl  (1907)  аs  fоllоws:

“Рrоximаte  саuse  meаns  the  асtive,  effiсient  саuse  thаt  sets  in  mоtiоn  а  trаin  оf  events  whiсh  brings  аbоut  а  result,  withоut  the  interventiоn  оf  аny  fоrсe  stаrted  аnd  wоrking  асtively  frоm  а  new  аnd  indeрendent  sоurсe. It  is  the  immediаte  саuse  аnd  nоt  the  remоte  саuse.  The  mаxim  is,  “Саusа  Рrоximа  nо  remоte  sрeсtаtоr”.  Immediаte  оr  рrоximаte  meаns  Рrоximаte  ineffiсienсy  аnd  nоt  neсessаrily  in  time.  The  соnsiderаtiоn  is  whаt  hаs  brоught  аbоut  the  result? А  shiр  wаs  severely  tоrрedоed  аnd  wаs  in  the  рrосess  оf  sinking.  Аlmоst  immediаtely  there  wаs  а  сyсlоniс  stоrm  аnd  the  shiр  sаnk.  It  wаs  held  thаt  the  рrоximаte  саuse  оf  the  sinking  оf  the  shiр  wаs  tоrрedо  (Leylаnd  Shiррing  Со. v. Nоrwiсh  Uniоn  Fire  Insurаnсe  Sосiety,  1918).”[1]

Despite the fact that, the typhoon was closer to sinking as expected, in any case, a torpedo was the dynamic effective cause, in light of the fact that the ship was so hard hit by a torpedo that it would have sunk. Possibly the cyclone has quickened the speed of sinking and it can basically be viewed as a remote cause. To take another example in consideration, a man tumbles from a ladder at a low stature and scratches his leg a bit. He is taken to an emergency clinic and in the emergency clinic, he contacts cholera from the following bed patient and passes on. The proximate cause for his demise is cholera and not tumbling from the ladder, or besides scratches on his leg, despite the fact that it tends to be wrongly contended that has he not had scratches on his leg he would not have gone to the clinic and contacted cholera as such. For this situation, scratches might be a distant reason. Let us take another example in consideration. A man scratches his leg tumbling from a ladder. He is being taken to the emergency clinic by a rescue vehicle. On route to the clinic, the rescue vehicle meets a head-on crash with a lorry and all people present in the emergency vehicle die including the man. The proximate reason for the man’s death is the crash and positively not the scratches. Crash being the reason for death is effective here while scratch is wasteful and distant.

2. Literature review

Proximate cause concerns with the reason behind the particular loss or harm that happened to the insured party associate and whether or not it is a results of an insured peril. It looks for the explanation behind the loss, whether it is that is an insured peril or not. The general principle of proximate cause is one of the six principles of insurance. The principle of proximate cause just about revolves round the administration of claims and, a lot of exactly, identification of the playability or otherwise of a claim on the question of perils coated by a policy. A policy could cover some perils mentioned specifically in that (known as insured perils), while some perils are also specifically excluded (known as excepted perils) and a few should still be neither included nor excluded (known as uninsured perils). It is not always easy for a loss to be caused by an insured or unsecured or an unforeseen risk so that the claim will become payable or non payable. Difficult situations occur when numbers of perils are simultaneously involved, some are insured, some are uncertain and some are still accepted. In addition, the position becomes even more difficult when the risk of insurance is followed by an excepted peril or an excepted peril is followed by an insured peril, at the same time being combined with uninsured peril.

3. Statement of Problem

The philosophy of Proximate cause or ‘causa poxima’ is one of the principles of insurance. In insurance law ‘causa Proxima Centauri et Non Remota Spectrum’ means that the immediate and not the remote cause should be considered. For the aim of claiming any policy the loss or injury caused should be a result of any one of the insured perils.[2] Peril is essentially the explanation for loss or the prime explanation for what is going to bring about to a loss.. The immediate and not the remote cause is to be considered proximate cause, the insurer perpetually considers the proximate cause whereas paying the claim.[3] The general principle of proximate cause has been given various meanings/definitions. Courts also have it interpreted on many occasions. The court have decided and interpreted what proximate cause is in each case and the court has full discretion to decide the matter in each case and thus there does not exist any clear definition of this doctrine. This is the statement of problem in my assignment that I have tried to analyse with the help of different case laws and illustrations.

4. Object of the Study

A consistent advance in the construction of legal doctrines and in their practice, it is impossible without a clear understanding of the basic meanings and concepts. While this is already the case it was emphasized more often in the past, today than ever before there is movement in all departments of information, in law, in metaphysics, in mathematics, re-examination concepts, axioms and definitions where the great formation of knowledge rests, and to secure larger clearness and accuracy of statement. The major responsibility for legal decisions, in particular, is to create and seek a more specific statement of principles relieved somewhat of the heat of things. In the general review of the basic definitions it is found that a comparative amount of kindered views in different departments of learning is not limited to the study of languages or myths, too that such an approach has various uses. The term “proximate cause” is often used by the benches like a bar in a vague and confusing way, with such statements focused on court decisions that can add more in the secrecy of the doctrine in the mind of the lawyer who does not offer a special study. For this reason a detailed as well as thorough study of the doctrine can be of a certain value.

5. Hypotheses

The term proximate cause was first defined in a case as:

“the doctrine of ‘proximate causa’ indicates “the active and efficient cause that sets in motion a train of events which brings about a result , without the intervention of any force started and working actively from a new and independent source.”[4]

On one hand laws represent current social values. But laws also shape values for future generations. Laws empower action, providing political resources and social force to achieve specific goals, but laws also limit action by setting arbitrary and fixed limits that may not correspond to the needs of systems. Because laws are difficult to repeal, they give sense of permanence to the values they establish. But laws also can become rigid, unresponsive to changing conditions and ultimately ineffective in solving the problems they were enacted to address. Hence this research contains following hypothesis:

1. Whether the general principle of proximate cause has a clear definition or is it interpretation of Courts that decides the meaning of Proximate Cause.
2. Whether Judiciary plays an important role in deciding the perils of the general principle of Proximate Cause.
3. Whether the general principle of Proximate cause changes with different circumstances based on different facts of cases.

6. Significance of the study

The concept of Proximate Cause was initially clearly declared as a legal doctorine by Bacon, and was embodied within the initial of his maxims within the phrase, “In jure non remola Causa, sedproxima spectatur”. The modern legal doctrine appears to be narrower and also definite in its application than a number of the older expressions of the concept which may be found in additional primitive systems of law or in the writings of philosophers before Bacon. An insurance is in fact a contract, however a contract of a peculiar kind, as a result of public policy the law tends to be favorable to commerce and to try to do what it will to safeguard and foster it. Cases of this sort can thus furnish a remarkable example of how a thought is altered in application by different circumstances.[5] The term ” proximate ” normally has one of the subsequent which meanings: (i) no meaning in the slightest degree, (2) principal, (3) nearest, (4) obvious. In several cases, however, and notably in cases of insurance contracts, the closest cause in time and place is taken into account for proximate cause.[6] “The maxim cause Proxima Centauri non remota spectatur is of importance to be discovered in these contracts. For it will be troublesome, if not not impossible, within the case of consecutive misfortunes happening to a ship from different causes, to form a simply apportioning of the injury to the peril; and as a general rule, which, once understood, can turn out to produce equality in its application, to attribute the loss to the last peril that affects the vessel, she having survived antecedent ones, is as safe and convenient as any which may be urged.”[7] For these reasons it becomes significant to discuss all the aspects of the general principle of Proximate Cause.

7. Research Methodology

The methodology adopted is purely doctrinal in nature. It involved in depth study of source materials, text review, case study and comparative study. The research is based on two types of material i.e., primary materials and secondary materials. Primary materials consist of the text of laws, declarations etc. on the issue. Secondary materials consist of books, articles, encyclopedia, research papers, newspapers and magazines. The research also includes study of case laws. Use of the internet was also made to gather important information relating to the subject of study. The research is analytical and descriptive in nature.

8.  Sources

Primary and Secondary sources of information have been utilized in the writing of this research.

9. Introduction

In law, a proximate cause is an occurrence sufficiently associated with the injury that the courts consider the event to be the reason behind that injury. There are two varieties of causation within the law: cause-in-fact, and proximate (or legal) cause. Cause-in-fact is set by the “but for” test: But for the action, the result would not have happened. (For example, but for running the red traffic light, the collision wouldn’t have occurred.) The action could be a necessary condition, however might not be a adequate condition, for the ensuing injury. A number of circumstances exist wherever the but for check is ineffective. Since but-for causation is extremely simple to point out (but for stopping to tie your shoe, you’d not have missed your train and would not have been mugged), a second check is employed to see if an action is close enough to harm in a very “chain of events” to be de jure valid. This check is termed proximate cause. Proximate cause could be a key principle of Insurance and is concerned with how the loss or harm really occurred. There are many competitive theories of proximate cause. For an act to be deemed to cause a harm, each tests should be met; proximate cause could be a legal limitation on cause-in-fact. The formal Latin term for “but for” (cause-in-fact) causation, is sine qua non causation.[8]

A related principle is that the insurance law principle of proximate cause. underneath this rule, so as to see whether or not a loss resulted from a cause lined under the insurance policy, a court considers for the predominant cause that sets into motion the chain of events manufacturing the loss, which can not essentially be the last event that instantly preceded the loss. several insurers have tried to contract around efficient proximate cause through the employment of “anti-concurrent causation” (ACC) clauses, underneath it if a lined cause and a noncovered cause join together to cause a loss, the loss is not covered.[9] ACC clauses often come into play in jurisdictions wherever property insurance does not unremarkably embody flood insurance and expressly excludes coverage for floods.[10] The classic example of How ACC clauses work is wherever a cyclone hits a building with wind and flood hazards at identical time. If the proof later shows that the wind blew off a building’s roof so water injury resulted solely as a result of there was no roof to stop rain from getting into, there would be coverage, however if the building was at the same time flooded (i.e., as a result of the rain caused a close-by body of water to rise or just overcome native sewers), an ACC clause would utterly block coverage for the whole loss (even if the building owner may otherwise attribute injury to wind v. flood).[11]

Proximate cause. this might not be a “principle” of marine insurance however section 55 (1) of the U.K. Marine Insurance Act 1906 elevates it to a condition that should be consummated before the underwriter becomes at risk to pay a claim. A claim becomes collectible as soon as the insured risk was a “direct” or “dominant” or “effective” reason behind the loss of the subject-matter.[12] The cause need not be the closest cause in time. If the injury or loss is not “proximately caused” by a peril insured against, i.e., if the reason behind the loss or injury is “remote” from the particular risk or “peril” insured against, the claim against the underwriter can fail. The section states:

“…the insurer is liable for any loss proximately caused by peril insured against, but he is not liable for any loss which is not proximately caused by a peril insured against”.

The section appears curiously worded however implies that the insurer is liable to a claimant if the claimant will prove that the loss was directly caused by some event or state of affairs that was insured against. It ison the will of the insurer, once a claim is made, to point out that the particular or direct reason behind the loss was an occurrence or circumstance against the happening of which the assured was not protected by insurance.

It is typically troublesome to spot that which of the events or circumstances or incidents can cause the loss or injury, if variety of potential causes exists. If any of the causes are not a peril insured against, the insurer can avoid or accept paying a claim as per his wish.

River Thames and Mersey Marine insurance firm v. Hamilton, 1887,

In the landmark judgement of River Thames and Mersey Marine insurance firm v. Hamilton,[13] 1887, a vessel and her machinery were insured against “perils of the sea” and different named “perils”. due to the negligence of the engineer a pump on board was broken. it was held by the court that the insurer was not responsible for the loss because it had not been caused by a peril of the ocean or by a peril named within the policy document. It may be fascinating to explore some cases to spot whether or not there was “proximate cause” and therefore the eventful remedy for the assured.

Pink v. Fleming, 1890

In Pink v. Fleming,[14] 1890, a cargo of oranges and lemons was insured against loss “consequent upon collision” of the carrying vessel. The vessel did suffer a collision and had to be repaired in a very port. throughout repairs, the payload had to be discharged and reloaded when repairs. once the payload acquired the destination it had been broken attributable to the handling at the repair port and therefore causing the delay. The direct loss wasn’t the collision however the perishable character of the payload. The assured was unsuccessful in getting the claim. The proximate cause does not ought to be the most recent in time.

Leyland Shjpping v. Norwich Union,. 1918,

In Leyland Shjpping v. Norwich Union,.[15] 1918, the insured vessel was torpedoed by a German submarine during the time of Word War I. The vessel was taken to a port for repairs and berthed within the inner harbour. throughout the shifting the vessel grounded and eventually sank. The question arose that what was the proximate reason behind the loss. If the loss was a “marine loss” (grounding may be a “peril of the sea”) the assured would be covered. If the reason for the loss was the war risk, this was excluded from the contract and therefore the assured would get nothing. it had been held by the court that the dominant reason or reason behind the loss was the torpedoing because the vessel was never out of impending danger from this cause till it sank. consequently, the assured’s claim is unsuccessful. Therefore the “immediate cause” of the loss is not essentially relevant.

Noten BV v. Harding, 1990

This was confirmed in the landmark judgement of Noten BV v. Harding,[16] 1990, wherein animal skin gloves carried in a container were broken by water, that had condensed on the roof of the container and dripped on to the gloves. The immediate cause was the dripping water from an external supply. The court had to enquire into what was the actual or dominant reason for the harm. The Court decided that the actual or dominant cause was that the gloves when once shipped they had excessive wetness. Due to “cargo sweat” because of temperature variations between the gloves and the container shell, this wetness was free and condensed on the container. The condensed water broke the gloves. If the wetness from the gloves themselves broken them this was from the character of the products or “inherent vice” hence this is often an exception to the insurer’s liability to pay a claim. the real cause within the gloves case was the wetness/moisture.

It is typically troublesome to determine what the real cause is.

The La Pointer, 1991

In a Canadian case, The La Pointer, 1991, this kind of problem arose. The vessel was in-built 1906. when an extended service she was sick in Vancouver harbour in Apr 1981. In early July 1982, the vessel suddenly developed a listing and sank quickly. The proximate reason for the loss was in question. The owners alleged that the sinking was the abrupt flooding of water into the vessel as a result of the pipeline below the water level contained flanges that were connected by steel bolts. These became corroded by ocean water within the pipeline as a result of the ocean suction and discharge valves had not been closed once the vessel was laid up. The flanges had separated and water entered the vessel. stainless-steel, brass or copper bolts would not have become corroded and given a way. The insurers, declared that the loss was caused by ordinary wear and tear and therefore flange projection deterioration was also ordinary corrosion which can even be ordinary wear and tear. Wear and tear on the insured subject-matter is not included in the insurance cover. The Supreme court of Canada, set that the vessel owner’s argument was correct. It seems that the Supreme Court failed to concern itself with the “proximate cause” however centered on “perils of the sea”. The loss was accidental (“fortuitous”) and not inevitable. Wear and tear are inevitable and not insurable. the utilization of the steel bolts joining the flanges on the pipeline was negligent in 1906. Though corrosion could also be ordinary, inevitable wear and tear, corrosion due to the negligent use of the incorrect materials is not inevitable. thus the insurance firm was liable to indemnify the vessel owner. The Judge said:

“It is my view that in determining whether loss falls within the policy, the cause of the loss should be determined by looking-at all the events which gave rise to it and asking whether it is fortuitous … This approach is preferable … to the artificial exercise of segregating the causes of the loss with a view to labeling one as proximate and the others as remote, an exercise on which the best of minds may differ.” 

Hamilton, Fraser and Co. v. Pandorf and Co.

The insurer is to blame for any loss that has been proximately caused by a peril insured against.[17] In Hamilton, Fraser and Co. v. Pandorf and Co.[18], it has been discovered that “where harm to consignment was caused by ocean water escaping through a hole in a very pipe gnawed by rats, the harm was because of ‘dangers and accidents of the sea’ .” Hence in any insurance cover knowing the fact of loss or harm could be a primary step for the purpose of claiming the policy cover. Causation means that the flexibility of one issue which ends within the happening of the opposite issue.[19]

Reynold v. Accidental Insurance Co.

In Reynold v. Accidental Insurance Co.[20],a question was raised on whether or not the last cause could be a mere consequence of the preceding reason behind the peril insured against or was there a possibility within the causation? “it was determined that if the last cause could be a mere probable and affordable consequence of the peril insured against with none novus actus interveniens, the peril insured against needs to be treated as the real and economical cause and therefore the insurance company is going to be liable, on the opposite hand, if the association between the preceding cause and therefore the last cause is interrupted by the intervention of a contemporary cause, which is not a mere affordable and probable consequence directly and naturally leading to the ordinary course of events from the peril insured against the insurance company would not be liable.”

10.  Proximate Cause: Case Laws

Let us consider some examples which would help in removing some confusion that might occur in mind about the proximate cause.

In YORKSHIRE DALE S.S. Co. v. MINISTER OF WAR TRANSPORT (1942)[21], the statement made was, “Choice of the important or economical cause from out of the full advancement of the facts should be created by applying reasonable standards. causation is to be understood as the man within the street, and not as either scientist or the metaphysician would perceive it”.

In GASKARTH v. LAW UNION (1876)[22]

The insurer, Law Union, issued a fire policy to an insured fire, however not storm or cyclone, etc. There was a fire within the insured premises as a results of that the walls lost strength, however yet were standing. Some days later there occurred a furious storm that caused the walls to fall. The insured lodged a claim for fire. The insurer repudiated the claim on the basis that the loss was proximately caused by the storm and not fire. The dispute went up to court. It absolutely was commanded that the proximate explanation for loss was the storm and, thus the insurer was entitled to repudiate the claim.

ROGERS v. WHITTAKER (1917)[23]

An ordinary fire policy was given to cover a warehouse and also the policy excluded war or warlike operations etc. The warehouse was utterly broken by fire arising out of a bomb being born from associate degree enemy craft. The insurer disowned the liability on the basis that even if the warehouse was broken by fire, the proximate reason for the harm was a warlike operation (i.e., enemy action) and also that the fire was merely a distant cause. The judgment was given in favor of the insurer that the loss was proximately caused by associate degree enemy action that was not lined by the policy.

COXE v. EMPLOYERS LIABILITY ASSU. (1916)[24]

This case is vital notably as it relates to a scenario whereby the applicability of proximate cause was changed by special policy wordings. it absolutely was a private accident policy covering accidental death however not caused directly or indirectly by or traceable to war. the very fact was that the insured was knocked down by a running train, in course of his duty as a officer, while guarding a railway line. It was held that even if the proximate explanation for his death was associate accident, the claim below the policy was not redeemable just because the explanation for the death may be remotely traced to war that was excluded from the ambit of the policy coverage. Had the wordings of the policy not been like that, the claim would be payable below the policy.

11. Application of the Rule of ‘Causa Proxima’

Life Insurance:  Under life assurance, the contract is taken against the chance of death and any natural causes which may in all probability end in death, makes the party eligible to claim the over except within the cases of the suicides.[25]

Accident Insurance: If cause of death is direct i.e ; caused inadvertently then there is no question of proximate cause. The doctrine is directly satisfied and therefore the amount will be recovered.

In Issit v. Railway Passengers Assurance Co.,[26] a railway passenger was insured against death from the effect of injury caused by accident. He fell down from the train and was hospitalized. He was undergoing treatment within the hospital and died due to attack of respiratory illness. “The court held that the death was a results of the accident by applying the maxim ‘causa Sproxima’ and therefore the insurer was liable.”

Fire Insurance: The principle of causa proxima is applicable in fire Insurance also. It has been discovered in Stanley v. Western Insurance Co.[27], that “any loss ensuing from the hearth and ensuing from the necessary and valid efforts to place out the hearth whether or not by the spoiling of products by water or throwing the articles out the window or knocking down a house for the aim of preventing the spreading of the flames square measure at intervals the policy of fireside insurance.”

Marine Insurance: When the loss is caused by the perils of the ocean the maxim ‘causaproxima ‘ is applicable to the case of Marine Insurance. Perils of the ocean is outlined within the Hague Visby Rules[28] which under Article 4(2) (c) defines ‘perils’ as ‘perils’, dangers and accidents of the ocean or different passable waters, and provides a defence for the carrier from liability for loss or harm.[29]

In Dudgeon v. Permbroke,[30] a ship was insured with a time policy and it was lost due to the violent action of the winds and the waves. The insurer argued that they were not liable as the ship was not fit for voyage. The House of Lords held by applying the maxim causa Sproxima that the immediate cause for the loss was the violent action of the wind and the waves and therefore, the insurance company was liable even though the loss could not have happened but for the concurrent action of some other cause not within the policy i.e, unseaworthiness of ship.

12. Rules Of The General Principle of Proximate Cause

Concerning pay-ability or otherwise of a claim, keeping in view the perils insured, uninsurable and excepted, bound rules of proximate cause ought to be noted fastidiously. They are:

Single Cause: once one cause provides rise to a claim the problem is straightforward. If the cause is insured one the claim is payable if the cause is uninsurable or excepted the claim is not payable.

Concurrent Causes: It becomes a troublesome proposition once a loss is caused by the operation of the many perils, some insured, some uninsurable and a few excepted. If no excepted peril is concerned, then only if there’s a minimum of one insured peril concerned, the claim becomes collectible by disregardless others. However, if excepted peril is committed insured peril then if the results of excepted peril are often separated from that of the insured peril there’s a liability for the loss caused by the insured peril. If it can’t be therefore separated then there’s no liability whatever.[31]

Unbroken Sequence: If excepted peril is followed by insured peril, there is no claim. If on the opposite hand insured peril is followed by excepted peril there is a claim for the loss caused by the insured peril. once many events occur in unbroken sequence than provided there’s no excepted peril concerned, the complete claim is collectible as long as  insured peril is concerned.

Broken Sequence: If excepted peril is followed by insured peril as a brand new and freelance cause then there is a liability for the loss caused by the insured peril. If on the opposite hand, insured peril is followed by excepted peril as a brand new and freelance cause, here conjointly there’s a liability for the loss caused by the insured peril.[32]

13. Waiver of the General Principle of Proximate Cause

Sometimes the appliance of the rule of proximate cause is also waived by insurers through policy conditions. the simplest example here is perhaps the standard fire policy. The policy does not cover loss due to “spontaneous fermentation”, however any resultant fire injury is covered.[33] This is as a result of the insurers have used the word “it’s own” before “spontaneous fermentation” which suggests that solely the property subjected to spontaneous fermentation is excluded however any resultant fire injury is covered. Had the words “its own” not been there the resultant fire injury would not be lined below the rule of proximate cause. By using these two words, the insurers have by choice waived the appliance of the rule of proximate cause.[34]

14.Conclusion and Analyses

In general, what I understood regarding the speculation of proximate cause is that it is that cause that triggers a sequence of events leading to the particular loss. For instance, due to a storm if the wall collapses and as a results of this there is short circuit and due to the spark there is an injury ensuing from fire (insured peril). so herein with the present example there’s a chain of events that resulted in the actual injury. even supposing fire is that the insured peril the proximate cause is storm and so the insurer is liable to pay the injured. However, the insurer in no case is liable to compensate if the loss is from excepted perils or uninsured perils or if it’s caused by the misconduct or fault of the assured. The main purpose to notice within the principle of proximate cause is that it’s not applicable within the case of life Insurance as in the case of death the insurer is liable to pay no matter what is the cause for death whether natural or unnatural except within the case of suicide. There are some exceptions to the this also like within the case of Accident profit, if the insured is killed or suffered injury that has a right away cause which ends up to death of the insured. Once the cause is known so the link of the cause with the insured peril is established and when it becomes clear that it’s coated beneath the pinnacle of proximate cause the principle of indemnity takes effect; indemnity is that the manner the insurer places the insured as before the loss i.e, creating sensible the loss or reinstating the position of the insured. Each of the principle of indemnity and proceedings Proxima is not applicable within the case of insurance. The principle of indemnity can not be applied within the case of insurance as human life can not be measured in terms of cash and so it can not be considered contract of indemnity. Conjointly the principle of proceedings Proxima does not apply to insurance because the insurer is obligated to pay the money in spite of the cause for death be it natural or unnatural. The insurer or the corporate is liable if one amongst the reasons for loss is associated with insured peril and none of them is associate excepted peril or the loss is caused by the insured and also the excepted perils will be distinguished. Therefore there should be insured peril and also the relationship between the deed and also the actual event should be observed ,the principal of proximate cause identifies the closest or direct cause that resulted within the harm, once there exist a sequence of events. During this case the foremost influential cause is to be determined in order to settle the claim. Once the predominant cause is determined and it becomes clear that the proceedings Proxima is covered under the ‘insured peril’, the insurer is at risk to compensate and at that time the principle of Indemnity can surface. However, the insurer is not liable if the losses caused by the insured additional to the excepted perils can’t be separated or distinguished and also if it is caused by the negligent act of the insured . As the insurer should take tutelage to the insured property like however a rational or prudent man would do. Altogether the contract of insurance the principle of Loss decrease is applicable and also the insured should attempt to scale back the danger and loss hooked up with the property. Keeping all these principles and exceptions the court decides what the proximate cause is in every case and also the full discretion is with the court to interpret this doctrine; this is often done by the mere application of the court’s wisdom.

15. References

1. Avtar, Singh. Law Of Insurance. Lucknow: Eatern Book Company, 2010.
2. S.R and Myneni. law of insurance. Hyderabad: S.P. Gogia, 2013.
3. J, R Archana. “A critical Study on perils of the sea under Marine Insurance.” International Journal of Legal
4. Insight (n.d.): 297-299.
5. John, Birds’. Birds’ Modern Insurance Law. London: Thomson Reuters, 2010.
6. KSN, Murthy and Dr KVS Sarma. Modern Law Of Insurance. Haryana: Lexis Nexis, 2010.
7. Patrick, J Kelley. “Proximate caus in Negligence law. history , theory and the present Darkness.” Washington
8. University Law Review (january 1991): 54-56.
9. Ralph, S Bauer. “Notre Dame Law Review.” Confusions of the terms Proximate and Direct 5 january 1936:
10. 396-398.
11. Sachin, Rastogi. Insurance Law And Principles. Lucknow: Lexis Nexis, 2014.

[1]  [1918] AC 350

[2] (1918) A.C. 101

[3] DR. S.R.MYNENI, LAW OF INSURANCE 95 (2d ed)

[4] Pawsey & co. v. Scottish Union & National Insurance Co.,[1908] UKPC 60

[5] Cp. 2 Arnould on Marine Ins., 6th ed., 727; Ionides v. Universal Marine Ins. Assn., I4 C. B. N. S. 259.

[6] Ibid

[7] 1 Parker, C. J., in Rice v. Homer, i2 Mass. 230, 234 (i8I5). Cp. Shearman & Red- field on Negligence, 5th ed. (I898) ?? 57-60

[8] Michael S. Moore, The Metaphysics of Causal Intervention, 88 calif l. rev. 827 (2000).

[9] Leon A. Green, The Rationale of Proximate Cause (1927)

[10] Leonard v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 499 F.3d 419 (5th Cir. 2007)

[11] Ibid

[12] Ibid

[13] (1887) 12 AC 484, HL

[14] (1890) 25 Q.B.D. 396

[15] [1918] AC 350.

[16] ([1990] Lloyd’s Rep 283)

[17] Sec.55 of the Marine Insurance Act,1963

[18] (1887)12 AC 518, 524

[19] JOHN BIRD’S, BIRD’S MODERN INSURANCE LAW 263 (8^TH ed).

[20] (1870)22 LT 82

[21] [1947] ResJud 57

[22] 5 KB 188

[23] 175 CLR 479

[24] 191 SC 233

[25] F.BACON, A COLLECTION OF SOME PRINCIPAL RULES AND MAXIMES OF THE COMMON LAWS OF ENGLAND, IN THE ELEMENTS OF THE COMMON LAWS OF ENGLAND(1630 and photo reprint 1978), Regula 1,at 97

[26] (1889)22 QBD 504

[27] (1868) KR 3 Eych 7

36 Ibid

[29] Ibid.

[30] (1877)2 AC 284 (H.L)

[31] Avtar, Singh. Law Of Insurance. Lucknow: Eatern Book Company, 2010.

[32] Ibid.

[33] J, R Archana. “A critical Study on perils of the sea under Marine Insurance.” International Journal of Legal Insight (n.d.): 297-299. John, Birds’. Birds’ Mode

[34] Ibid.