When causation is an issue in a disputed insurance claim, what approach will a court generally take to determine proximate cause?

In cases where causation is an issue in a disputed insurance claim, courts typically rely on the common understanding of causation by a layperson to determine proximate cause. This approach allows the court to assess the situation in a manner that reflects the perspective and reasoning of the average person, rather than an overly technical or legalistic interpretation.

Courts often recognize that jurors and laypeople can relate to common life experiences when evaluating whether a particular event or act caused damage or loss covered by an insurance policy. This pragmatic viewpoint facilitates a more equitable assessment of claims as it aligns with how ordinary individuals interpret cause and effect in everyday situations.

In contrast, relying solely on expert testimony might create a barrier that complicates the understanding of causation for those without specialized knowledge. Focusing exclusively on documentary evidence could ignore the context and nuances surrounding claims that a layperson might intuitively grasp. Similarly, adhering strictly to the insurer's interpretation of the policy may not adequately address the realities and practicalities of the situation at hand. Overall, using the common understanding of causation allows for a more balanced and accessible approach in resolving such disputes.