In the case where Seb suffered injuries and contracted pneumonia, what likely court ruling would arise under proximate cause?

In the context of proximate cause in insurance law, the ruling that would likely arise for Seb's case is that he is covered due to the unbroken chain of events. Proximate cause refers to a primary cause that directly leads to an effect, which in this case is the injury that Seb sustained.

If Seb developed pneumonia as a direct consequence of his injuries (for instance, if the injuries led to a weakened immune system or resulted in prolonged immobility), then it can be argued that the pneumonia is reasonably related to the initial injuries. This establishes an unbroken chain of events linking the injury to the illness, making it a foreseeable outcome of the injury itself.

Thus, when evaluating whether damages or claims are covered under insurance, the focus is on whether the subsequent condition was a natural result of the original incident. In this situation, the link between the injury and the development of pneumonia supports the notion of coverage, positioning it well within the principles of proximate cause.