The ‘But For’ Test in Proving Causation in Insurance Claims in Uganda
Loading...
Date
2023
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
STRATHMORE LAW JOURNAL
Abstract
Causation in insurance law refers to the cause-and-effect relationship
between an event and the resulting loss or damage. Causation is an important
concept because it determines whether an insured party is entitled to coverage
under a particular policy. There are several legal principles that are used to
evaluate causation in insurance disputes, including the proximate cause rule
and the ‘but for’ test. The ‘but for’ test, which inquires whether the loss would
not have occurred ‘but for’ the occurrence of the covered event, has been
criticized for its oversimplification of the causation analysis and its failure to
adequately consider the complex causal chain that often underlies loss. In
addition, the ‘but for’ test tends to draw a number of false negatives while
taking into account certain irrelevant considerations. In contrast, the proximate
cause rule, which requires that the covered event be the primary cause of the
loss or damage, offers a more nuanced and comprehensive approach to
causation analysis. It considers the full range of factors that may have
contributed to the loss or damage and allows for a more flexible and context specific analysis of causation. This article argued that the ‘but for’ test is an
unreliable method for proving causation in insurance law and that the
proximate cause rule is more appropriate. This article concluded that the
proximate cause rule is a more reliable method for proving causation in
insurance law and should be adopted as the standard for determining coverage
under an insurance policy
Description
Keywords
But For’ Test, Causation, Insurance Claims, Insurance Law, Proximate Cause Rule