Gillis v. Sun Insurance Office, Ltd.

California Court of Appeal
25 A.L.R. 3d 564, 47 Cal. Rptr. 868, 238 Cal. App. 2d 408 (1965)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

When a covered peril under an insurance policy is the dominant and efficient proximate cause of a loss, the insurer is liable for the entire loss, even if an excluded peril subsequently contributes to or aggravates the damage as part of the same chain of events.

Facts:

Trident, Inc. merged with and became Kingston Trio, Inc. on May 7, 1962.
In July 1962, Kingston Trio, Inc. constructed and owned docking facilities, consisting of three fiberglass float sections, next to its restaurant.
On July 12, 1962, Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. issued an insurance policy covering the docking facilities, but mistakenly named the defunct 'Trident, Inc.' as the insured.
The policy provided coverage for 'direct loss by windstorm' but contained a 'Water Exclusion' clause for any loss 'contributed to or aggravated by' waves or water.
On January 30, 1963, a violent windstorm lifted a gangway attached to the dock, causing it to break off its hinges and fall violently upon one of the float sections.
The impact from the gangway damaged the float section, causing it to take on water.
Over the next several hours, the action of waves on the damaged and partially submerged dock caused it to break apart and sink completely.

Procedural Posture:

Kingston Trio, Inc. and its mortgagee assigned their insurance claim to the plaintiff, Gillis.
Gillis sued Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. in a California trial court to recover for the loss of the docking facility.
Following a trial by the court, a judgment was entered in favor of Gillis for the cost of repairs.
Sun Insurance Office, Ltd., as appellant, appealed the judgment to the California Court of Appeal.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does an insurance policy's water exclusion clause, which bars recovery for loss 'contributed to or aggravated by' water or waves, prevent recovery when a covered peril, windstorm, is the dominant and efficient proximate cause that initiates a chain of events leading to the final water damage?

Opinions:

Majority - Sims, J.

No. The policy's water exclusion clause does not prevent recovery because the windstorm was the dominant and efficient proximate cause of the entire loss. First, the court reformed the insurance contract to correct the mistaken identification of the insured from the defunct Trident, Inc. to its successor, Kingston Trio, Inc., as the insurer intended to cover the property and was not prejudiced by the error. Second, applying the efficient proximate cause doctrine from Sabella v. Wisler and California Insurance Code § 530, the court determined that the insurer is liable for a loss of which a covered peril was the proximate cause, even if an excluded peril was a remote cause. Here, the windstorm directly caused the initial impact damage by propelling the gangway onto the dock. This initial damage was the start of an unbroken chain of events that created a vulnerable condition, permitting the subsequent wave action to destroy the facility. Because the windstorm was the 'predominating or moving-efficient cause,' the subsequent contribution from the excluded peril (waves) does not bar recovery for the entire loss.

Analysis:

This case solidifies the application of the efficient proximate cause doctrine in California insurance law, particularly against policy clauses with 'anti-concurrent causation' language like 'contributed to or aggravated by.' The decision establishes that such language cannot defeat coverage when a covered peril initiates a direct, unbroken chain of causation. It prevents insurers from denying claims where the excluded peril is merely a subsequent link in a chain started by a covered peril, thereby strengthening protection for policyholders and narrowing the scope of such exclusion clauses.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Gillis v. Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. (1965)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature