Understanding the Principle of Proximate Cause in Marine Insurance

In marine insurance, understanding the "proximate cause" is crucial in determining whether a claim is valid. 

Whether you're involved in marine cargo insurance, freight forwarding, or import-export operations, having a grasp on this concept could be the difference between a successful claim and an outright denial.

Definition and Legal Maxim of Proximate Cause

1. Understanding ‘Causa Proxima’

The term "causa proxima" (proximate cause) refers to the direct, dominant, or most significant cause of loss in marine insurance. Insurers use a key principle to determine whether a particular event is covered under the marine insurance policy. 

Simply put, it's not just about what started the chain of events but what ultimately caused the loss. The key here is distinguishing between the proximate cause and the more distant, indirect causes.

For instance, if a ship carrying goods encounters a storm and the storm directly damages or destroys cargo, the storm would be the proximate cause. This is essential in marine insurance, where claims can be complex, particularly when multiple factors are involved.

2. Explanation of the Legal Maxim: ‘Causa Proxima Non Remota Spectatur’

The legal maxim "causa proxima non remota spectatur" translates to "the proximate, not the remote cause is considered." 

In marine insurance, this principle means that only the nearest cause of the loss is relevant when assessing a claim rather than the events that led to it. Insurers focus on the direct cause when deciding whether the policy covers the loss.

This concept is crucial when evaluating claims in marine insurance, freight insurance, or even when handling an insurance claim letter for reimbursement. 

For example, suppose goods are damaged after a storm due to poor packaging. In that case, the storm might still be the proximate cause because it directly resulted in the damage, regardless of secondary factors like packaging issues.

3. Illustrative Examples of Proximate Cause

To bring this concept into context, let's look at a few examples:

1. Storm Damage to Cargo: If a ship encounters a storm and the goods on board are damaged, the storm would be the proximate cause. In such cases, the claim is likely valid under marine cargo insurance as the policy covers natural events like storms.
2. Fire on Board Due to Negligence: If a fire breaks out due to the crew's negligence but spreads rapidly, destroying the cargo, the proximate cause would be the fire, not the negligence. Here, the policy might cover the fire damage even if negligence played a role.
3. Collision and Subsequent Sinking: If a vessel collides with another ship and sinks, the collision is considered the proximate cause. The sinking is simply a consequence of the collision.

In each case, the principle of proximate cause helps insurers, import-export businesses, and logistics operators evaluate claims and determine responsibility.

Also Read: Essential Elements and Principles of Marine Insurance Contract

Importance of Proximate Cause in Marine Insurance

Determining proximate cause directly influences how claims are assessed and settled, impacting the overall risk management strategy for businesses in logistics and supply chain management.

1. Scope of Marine Insurance Policies

A typical marine insurance policy covers risks like storms, piracy, and accidents during transit. However, not all potential causes of loss are covered. 

Determining whether the cause of damage is the proximate cause ensures that the insurance claim is processed fairly and aligns with the policy's terms. This helps the insured parties (businesses and exporters) and insurers manage risk effectively and ensure transparency in claims.

Key Points:

• Marine insurance policies can include inland marine and ocean marine insurance, covering different legs of the shipment.
• The proximate cause narrows down the exact peril causing the loss, which is essential in marine cargo and freight insurance.

2. Significance of Determining the Exact Peril Causing the Loss

One of the central functions of proximate cause in marine insurance is identifying the peril that directly caused the loss. Insurance policies often specify which risks are covered and which are excluded. 

Therefore, determining the exact danger is critical in determining whether a loss falls within the policy's coverage.

Several perils can co-occur in marine insurance. For example, a shipment may be delayed due to a storm, and additional damage could occur from human error. In such cases, it is essential to determine which peril—the storm or human error—was the proximate cause of the loss.

Identifying the exact peril helps ensure that:

• Shipping insurance claims are accurately settled.
• Insurance claim letters for reimbursement are clear, avoiding unnecessary disputes.
• Policyholders know what to expect from their marine insurance in terms of coverage.

Example:

Imagine a ship encountering a severe storm. While the storm damages some cargo, a subsequent failure to secure the goods leads to further loss. The insurance claim will focus on the proximate cause—was it the storm or the inability to secure the goods? 

The determination affects whether the loss is covered under import-export insurance or denied due to policy exclusions.

3. Role of Proximate Cause in Settling Claims

When an incident occurs, insurers analyze the proximate cause to establish whether the loss falls within the policy's covered perils. This ensures that the insurance policy responds to the primary cause of the damage or loss, not any secondary or remote factors.

For example, consider a situation where cargo is damaged due to a fire caused by a ship malfunction. Even if there were other contributing factors—such as faulty navigation or delayed response to the fire—the fire is the proximate cause of the loss. Hence, the insurer would cover the loss under the marine cargo insurance policy.

This focus on the proximate cause also reduces the complexity of claims, as it provides an explicit criterion for evaluating claims. Both insurers and policyholders benefit from this clarity because:

• It helps avoid disputes between parties regarding what caused the loss.
• It enables faster settlement of insurance claims related to shipment inspection and Ocean Shipping.
• It builds trust, ensuring that policies cover genuine risks faced during transportation.

Also Read: Definition and Meaning of Cargo Insurance Certificate in Shipping Terms

Application of Proximate Cause in Marine Insurance

By identifying the most immediate cause of a loss, marine insurance policies clarify liability, guide the process for claims settlements, and reduce disputes between parties.

1. Focus on Proximate Cause in Assessing Liability

In marine insurance, liability is primarily assessed based on the proximate cause of the loss. When a loss occurs, the insurer must determine whether the event that caused the damage is a covered peril under the insurance policy. 

The principle of causa proxima ensures that insurers focus on the most direct cause rather than any remote or secondary factors.

For example, a shipping container damaged by rough seas would likely be covered under marine cargo insurance, as storms and other natural forces are standard perils included in most policies. 

However, if the damage occurred due to improper storage or human negligence after the storm, the insurer may reject the claim if the proximate cause is deemed human error rather than the storm.

The emphasis on proximate cause simplifies the claims process by:

• Clarifying which perils are covered under the marine insurance policy.
• Helping insurers and insured parties focus on the specific event that led to the loss, avoiding complications from secondary or unrelated factors.

This principle is fundamental in freight, inland marine, and ocean marine insurance, where multiple events may contribute to a loss. Still, only the primary cause is relevant for claims settlement.

2. Comparison with Other Liabilities: Considering 'Causa Causans'

While proximate cause focuses on the immediate cause of a loss, the concept of causa causans—the originating cause—also plays a role in insurance claims. In some cases, determining liability may involve assessing the loss's proximate cause and root cause.

For instance, in a scenario where goods are damaged due to a fire that started because of faulty wiring on a ship, the fire would be considered the proximate cause, while the faulty wiring is the causa causans. 

However, marine insurance policies often focus on the proximate cause when settling claims. This means the insurer would likely cover the damage caused by the fire, not the wiring issue unless the policy includes specific exclusions related to negligence or faulty equipment.

• Proximate cause simplifies the claims process by focusing on the immediate peril that caused the loss, whether a storm, fire, or collision.
• Causa causans, while relevant in specific legal contexts, typically do not affect the outcome of a marine insurance claim unless specific exclusions or clauses exist in the policy.

Handling Multiple Proximate Causes in Marine Insurance

When multiple events contribute to a loss, evaluating how each cause is treated within the insurance policy is critical.

1. Implications of Concurrent Causes, Where One is Excepted from Cover

Marine insurance policies often list both covered and excluded perils. When a loss is caused by an insured peril and an excluded one, the insurer will closely examine each cause's contribution.

For example, imagine a cargo ship caught in a severe storm that leads to damage. However, the crew’s negligence in handling the cargo during the storm also affects the damage. 

Suppose the marine insurance policy excludes negligence as a covered cause but includes natural perils like storms. In that case, the insurer may deny the claim because negligence was a contributing proximate cause despite the storm being a covered peril.

In such cases:

• Marine insurance claims can be disputed. The policyholder may argue that the insured peril (the storm) was the leading cause, while the insurer may focus on the excluded cause (negligence).
• Insurers may deny or limit the claim, depending on how the policy is structured and how much weight is given to each cause.

2. Implications of Cases Where Multiple Proximate Causes Exist and One is Insured

In contrast, when multiple proximate causes exist and at least one is insured, the insurance claim is more likely to be accepted. Marine insurance policies generally provide coverage when an insured peril is a proximate cause of the loss, even if other contributing factors exist.

For example, if a ship’s cargo is damaged by a collision (an insured peril) and a subsequent fire (another insured peril), the insurer will likely accept the claim. 

However, suppose the collision is compounded by another excluded factor, like poor maintenance of the ship. In that case, the claim may still be valid if the proximate cause is the collision itself.

This approach ensures:

• Businesses can recover losses if one of the proximate causes is covered under the policy.
• Insurers will analyze each contributing factor but often prioritize the insured peril when it is a significant damage cause.

Also Read: Exploring Different Types of Marine Insurance Clauses

Insurer Liability and Burden of Proof in Marine Insurance

Establishing the proximate cause is crucial to determining the insurer's liability in marine insurance. However, in cases where the cause cannot be identified or ambiguous claims arise, the burden of proof becomes a critical factor.

1. Insurer’s Liability When Cause Cannot Be Established

When the proximate cause of a loss cannot be determined, the insurer’s liability becomes uncertain. Typically, insurers rely on identifying the proximate cause to assess whether the loss is covered under the marine insurance policy. The insurer may deny liability if the cause remains unclear or cannot be attributed to an insured peril.

For instance, if goods are damaged during transit but cannot be traced back to a specific event, such as a storm or collision, the insurer may not be liable to pay the claim. 

In this scenario, the claimant (typically the importer or exporter) would need to provide additional evidence to prove that the loss was caused by a peril covered by marine insurance.

In situations where the cause cannot be determined:

• Insurers may deny claims, arguing that insufficient evidence links the loss to a covered peril.
• Policyholders might have to conduct extensive shipment inspections or other evaluations to identify the cause before submitting an insurance claim letter for reimbursement.

2. Consideration of Burden of Proof in Ambiguous Claims

In ambiguous claims, the burden of proof typically falls on the insured party (the policyholder). This means that the importer, exporter, or logistics provider making the claim must prove that the loss was caused by a peril covered by their marine insurance policy.

For example, suppose a shipping container is damaged, but conflicting reports exist on whether it was caused by rough seas or mishandling during loading. 

In that case, the claimant must provide sufficient evidence that rough seas (an insured peril) were the proximate cause. Failure to do so may result in denying the claim, as the insurer is not obligated to cover losses resulting from non-covered perils.

In ambiguous claims:

• The insured party must prove that the loss was caused by an insured peril, which can involve presenting documentation, photos, or logistics reports.
• Insurers may request additional evidence, such as the results of a shipment inspection, to verify the cause of the damage.

3. When Does the Presumption of Proximate Cause Not Apply? Setting Aside the Presumption

The presumption of proximate cause is not always applicable, especially in cases where there are multiple potential causes or where the cause is excluded from coverage. In some cases, the presumption may be set aside entirely, particularly if the evidence points to a non-covered peril as the leading cause of the loss.

For instance, if a ship is damaged due to a combination of poor maintenance and a storm, the presumption of proximate cause may be set aside if the insurer can prove that the damage was primarily caused by poor maintenance, which is typically excluded from coverage under freight insurance or marine insurance policies.

Setting aside the presumption of proximate cause usually occurs when:

• There is strong evidence pointing to an excluded peril as the main cause.
• The insurer can demonstrate that the loss would have occurred even without the insured peril, making the proximate cause irrelevant to the claim.

Also Read: Distinguishing Between Life, Fire and Marine Insurance

The Disadvantages of Causa Proxima in Marine Insurance

The principle of causa proxima (proximate cause) simplifies claims assessment by focusing on the direct cause of a loss. 

However, this approach has several disadvantages that complicate matters for shipping insurance businesses. Let's break down these drawbacks.

1. Narrow Focus on Immediate Cause

One major disadvantage is the narrow focus on the immediate cause. Causa proxima disregards other significant contributing factors, which may play a role in the loss but aren’t considered in the settlement. 

For example, if cargo damage results from rough seas and improper packaging, the proximate cause (rough seas) is the only factor considered, potentially limiting the claim.

2. Exclusion of Remote Causes

The exclusion of remote causes can also lead to unfair claims denial. In marine cargo insurance, if a storm causes delays that eventually lead to cargo damage, the insurer might only cover the storm and not the consequential damage caused by the delays. This narrow focus can leave businesses vulnerable to financial losses.

3. Ambiguity with Multiple Proximate Causes

When multiple proximate causes are involved, ambiguity often arises. If one of the causes is covered under the marine insurance policy, but another is excluded, insurers might deny the entire claim. 

For example, suppose weather conditions and human error contribute to a loss. In that case, the insurer may use the excluded human error to deny the claim despite the storm being an insured peril.

4. Inconsistency in Applicability

Another drawback is the inconsistency in how causa proxima is applied. Different jurisdictions and courts may interpret proximate cause differently, leading to inconsistent outcomes in claims settlements. 

This lack of uniformity can create uncertainty for businesses relying on import-export insurance and other marine-related policies.

5. Possibility of Pitfalls

The principle of proximate cause also opens up the possibility of pitfalls for businesses. If an insurer focuses solely on the proximate cause, the policyholder might struggle to receive full compensation for a loss that was, in reality, caused by multiple factors. 

For instance, a minor contributing factor could lead to a complete denial of the claim if it’s excluded under the policy despite the main cause being insured.

6. Restrictive Considerations

The principle of causa proxima non remota spectatur (the proximate cause is considered, not the remote cause) imposes restrictive considerations, limiting what can be covered in a claim. 

This restriction means complex events that lead to a loss might not be fully considered, particularly when multiple contributing factors are involved. As a result, policyholders may not be fully compensated for their losses, especially in complex scenarios.

Proximate Cause vs. Remote Cause in Marine Insurance

In marine insurance, determining the cause of a loss is critical for deciding whether the insurer is liable. Two key terms frequently discussed are proximate cause and remote cause. 

While proximate cause refers to the immediate, direct cause of a loss, remote cause involves indirect factors that might contribute to the damage but aren’t directly responsible. 

Understanding the difference between the two is essential for both insurers and policyholders. Here's a comparison table outlining the key differences between proximate cause and remote cause in marine insurance:

Introducing Pazago for Global Trade and Cargo Insurance

Pazago is a comprehensive EXIM management platform that simplifies global trade operations across more than 110 countries. 

By reducing costs by 20% and cutting turnaround times by 50%, Pazago ensures your business operates efficiently in an increasingly competitive global marketplace.

Key Features of Pazago:

• Digital Trade Management: Automate every stage of your trade process, ensuring efficiency from procurement to fulfillment.
• Real-Time Cargo Tracking: Track shipments across 180+ shipping companies globally, providing full visibility.
• Seamless Payments: Benefit from fast international payments with low Forex rates, optimizing cash flow.
• Document Management: Manage all trade documents securely and conveniently in one place.
• Proactive Planning: Get timely notifications to avoid delays in your trade operations.

Digital Cargo Insurance with Pazago:

Through a partnership with ICICI Lombard, Pazago offers digital cargo insurance with:

• Full Coverage against a wide range of risks.
• Quick Claims processing, with no need to prove carrier fault.
• Paperless Insurance: Fully online, simplifying the insurance process.

Why Choose Pazago

Success starts with smart management" 📦—and with Pazago, your EXIM operations and cargo are fully protected. From seamless import-export management to comprehensive cargo insurance, we’ve got you covered at every turn. 🌍

Ready to simplify and secure your global trade?

Choose Pazago, where smooth logistics meet top-tier protection! 🛡️

‍