The insured must mitigate the insured loss, when possible. If it did not, the insurer could say that the loss was not caused directly by an insured peril, but rather the fault of the insured. However, doing so could increase the loss or cause a loss that is not covered by the policy. You can recover if you acted reasonably and the loss may still be directly related to the insured risk, so that you have not taken any action that constitutes a navus actus interueniens.
– A storm knocks down the gable wall of a wooden building. The falling wall breaks the electrical wiring, causing a short circuit and sparks, causing a fire in the wooden building. Firefighters use water hoses to put out the fire and cool down neighboring buildings. However, the water damages the unburned contents of the wooden building and neighboring buildings. There is a direct line of causality between the storm and the water damage (Stanley v. Western Insurance Co. (1868) LR 3 Ex 71).
– A fire starts in a building and the insured throws furniture out of a window to try to save it. Furniture is damaged by impact with the ground.
Positive action by the insured to avoid or mitigate a loss generally does not break the chain of causation, provided they act reasonably. Therefore, the proximate cause of the loss is fire. Even where the policy excludes coverage for property removed from the premises, the exclusion will not apply when the insured property is removed for its own safety (Marsdenw. City & County Assurance Co. [1866] LR 1 CP 232). Similarly, if the property is stolen soon after, the loss is covered by fire insurance (Levy v. Baillie (1831) 7 Bing 349) unless the insurer can show that the insured acted unreasonably in not taking measures to prevent theft or to minimize other damage, for example from the weather, as theft or damage from the weather would be a new act that breaks the chain.
– A fire triggers a fire alarm. Employees leave the building, but the running production process cannot be delayed or stopped without damaging the merchandise. The immediate cause of any damage to merchandise resulting from an interruption in the production process would be fire. However, if the fire alarm was falsely sounded, or there was no reason for employees to leave the building, the immediate cause of the damage to the goods being processed would not be a fire, as the risk itself has not started. (Watson & Sons Ltd. v. Firemen’s Fund Insurance Co. of San Francisco [1922] 2 KB 355). The proximate cause of damage caused by egress after a false fire alarm is the negligence of the person who activated it. This will always be a matter of fact.