Which statement best reflects concurrent causation in open perils coverage?

Which statement best reflects concurrent causation in open perils coverage?

• A. The design of the dam is irrelevant to coverage
• B. The loss is covered if the design negligence is not an excluded peril
• C. A flood is always excluded under this policy
• D. The insurer must pay only for the non-flood portion

Answer: (B)

Concurrent causation in open perils coverage means the policy covers a loss if at least one of the contributing causes is a covered peril, even if another contributing cause is excluded. Here, if the design negligence is a peril that is not excluded, it serves as a covered cause contributing to the loss. Even though a flood (which could be excluded) is also a factor, the presence of a non-excluded, covered cause triggers coverage for the loss. If the design negligence were itself excluded, then there wouldn’t be a covered contributing cause, and the loss wouldn’t be covered.

Concurrent causation in open perils coverage means the policy covers a loss if at least one of the contributing causes is a covered peril, even if another contributing cause is excluded. Here, if the design negligence is a peril that is not excluded, it serves as a covered cause contributing to the loss. Even though a flood (which could be excluded) is also a factor, the presence of a non-excluded, covered cause triggers coverage for the loss. If the design negligence were itself excluded, then there wouldn’t be a covered contributing cause, and the loss wouldn’t be covered.