Anti-concurrent causation, in plain English
One sentence, buried above the exclusion list, decides what happens when a covered cause and an excluded cause arrive together. It is the most expensive sentence in the policy.
We do not cover loss caused directly or indirectly by any of the following excluded perils. Such loss is excluded regardless of any other cause or event contributing concurrently or in any sequence to the loss.Safeco HO-4, Section I — Personal Property Losses We Do Not Cover, preamble
What it does
Read it as a priority rule. If any excluded cause contributed to the loss — at the same time, or in sequence — the loss is excluded, even if a covered cause also contributed. The excluded cause does not have to be the main cause.
| Scenario | Without the clause | With the clause |
|---|---|---|
| Hurricane: wind opens the roof, rain floods the unit | Wind damage covered; rain damage disputed | The excluded water cause can control the whole loss |
| Storm: wind blows in a window, rain ruins the floor | Window covered; floor disputed | Same problem — the excluded cause taints the claim |
| Burst pipe during a flood evacuation | Pipe damage covered | Depends on sequence and proof — this is where documentation decides |
How claims still get paid under it
Three routes survive the clause, and all three are about separation:
- Separate the loss in time. If the wind damage happened and was repaired or documented before the water arrived, the two are distinct events.
- Separate the property. Property damaged only by the covered cause — furniture destroyed by wind before any water entered — can stand on its own.
- Use the ensuing-loss carve-back. The exclusion ends with an exception for fire, explosion or theft resulting from the excluded cause. That exception exists precisely because the clause is otherwise absolute.
What to ask when you file
- What was the first cause in time, and what is the evidence for the sequence?
- Which items were damaged before the excluded cause arrived?
- Is any part of the loss a fire, explosion or theft? That carve-back is separate from the water.
Denied under this clause?The appeal is a sequencing argument, not a coverage argument.
Read the denial guideSources
- Form Safeco HO-4, form CHO-6004/EP 10/99 — Section I exclusions preamble; exclusion 2 final sentence