Anti-concurrent causation clauses specify that a loss is not covered when it was the result of more than one peril and at least one of the perils is subject to a policy exclusion. Such clauses were widely adopted by insurers following adverse court decisions that resulted in insurers providing coverage that was never intended to be provided by the relevant policy language.
The use of such provisions has come under legislative and regulatory scrutiny, particularly in claims disputes after some extreme weather events. These disputes often draw outsized attention from media and elected officials, even as the overwhelming majority of claims are paid without issue.
Anti-concurrent clauses have been validated and enforced by most courts as an appropriate way for insurers to ensure that policies provide coverage for only those losses they are meant to cover. For insurers, they provide a means of enhancing predictability and managing exposure, allowing for greater financial stability and solvency.