efficient proximate cause rule in Washington

2016“In such a situation, the efficient proximate cause rule mandates coverage, even if an excluded event appears in the chain of causation that ultimately produces the loss.” Id. (citing Safeco Ins.

2012The efficient proximate cause rule operates as an interpretive tool to establish coverage when a covered peril "sets other causes into motion which, in an unbroken sequence, produce the result for which recovery is sought." McDonald, 119 Wash.2d at 731 , 837 P.2d 1000 . ¶ 42 The opposite proposition, however, is not a rule of law.

2004The "rule is properly applied after (1) a determination of which single act or event is the efficient proximate cause of the loss and (2) a determination that the efficient proximate cause of the loss is a covered peril." McDonald, 119 Wash.2d at 732 , 837 P.2d 1000 . "`When, however, the evidence shows the loss was in fact occasioned by only a single cause, albeit one susceptible to various characterizations, the efficient proximate cause analysis has no application.'" Kish, 125 Wash.2d at 170 , 883 P.2d 308 (quoting Chadwick v. Fire Ins.

2004The “rule is properly applied after (1) a determination of which single act or event is the efficient proximate cause of the loss and (2) a determination that the efficient proximate cause of the loss is a covered peril.” McDonald, 119 Wn.2d at 732 . “ When, however, the evidence shows the loss was in fact occasioned by only a single cause, albeit one susceptible to various characterizations, the efficient proximate cause analysis has no application.’ ” Kish, 125 Wn.2d at 170 (quoting Chadwick v. Fire Ins.

1992Co. of Am. v. Hirschmann, 112 Wn.2d 621 , 773 P.2d 413 (1989). *732 Initially, State Farm requests this court to discard the efficient proximate cause rule.

1992Co. of Am. v. Hirschmann, 112 Wn.2d 621 , 773 P.2d 413 (1989). *732 Initially, State Farm requests this court to discard the efficient proximate cause rule.

2017The majority compares the exclusionary language here to that in Villella v. Public Employees Mutual Insurance Co., 106 Wn.2d 806 , 725 P.2d 957 (1986), and Key Tronic Corp., Inc. v. Aetna (CIGNA) Fire Underwriters Insurance Co., 124 Wn.2d 618 , 881 P .2d 201 ( 1994 ), both of which constituted an attempt to circumvent the efficient proximate cause rule.

2017The majority compares the exclusionary language here to that in Villella v. Public Employees Mutual Insurance Co., 106 Wn.2d 806 , 725 P.2d 957 (1986), and Key Tronic Corp., Inc. v. Aetna (CIGNA) Fire Underwriters Insurance Co., 124 Wn.2d 618 , 881 P .2d 201 ( 1994 ), both of which constituted an attempt to circumvent the efficient proximate cause rule.

1996In Kish , this Court emphasized that "the purpose of the efficient proximate cause rule is to provide a 'workable rule of coverage that provides a fair result within the reasonable expectations of both the insured and the insurer.’ ” Kish, 125 Wn.2d at 172 (quoting Garvey v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 48 Cal. 3d 395, 404 , 770 P.2d 704 , 257 Cal. Rptr. 292 (1989)).

1996In Kish , this Court emphasized that "the purpose of the efficient proximate cause rule is to provide a 'workable rule of coverage that provides a fair result within the reasonable expectations of both the insured and the insurer.’ ” Kish, 125 Wn.2d at 172 (quoting Garvey v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 48 Cal. 3d 395, 404 , 770 P.2d 704 , 257 Cal. Rptr. 292 (1989)).

2023On the other hand, “ ‘[w]hen an excluded peril sets in motion a causal chain that includes covered perils, the efficient proximate cause rule does not mandate exclusion of the loss.’ ” Hill & Stout, 200 Wn.2d at 226 (quoting Vision One, 174 Wn.2d at 519 ) (emphasis in original).

2016“The efficient proximate cause rule applies only when two or more perils combine in sequence to cause a loss and a covered peril is the predominant or efficient cause of the loss.” Id. (emphasis added and omitted) (citing McDonald v. State Farm Fire & Cas.

2012Co., 98 Wn.

2012Co., 98 Wash.App. 7, 20 , 990 P.2d 414 (1999).

2011Id. ¶ 10 Division One revisited the issue in Roberts v. Allied Group Insurance Co., 79 Wash.App. 323 , 901 P.2d 317 (1995).

2011Id. ¶10 Division One revisited the issue in Roberts v. Allied Group Insurance Co., 79 Wn.

2004Exch., 17 Cal. App. 4th 1112, 1117 , 21 Cal. Rptr. 2d 871 (1993)).

2004Exch., 17 Cal. App. 4th 1112, 1117 , 21 Cal. Rptr. 2d 871 (1993)).

2004The efficient proximate cause is that which “in an unbroken sequence and connection between the act and final loss, produce [s] the result for which recovery is sought.” Graham, 98 Wn.2d at 538 .

2004Graham, 98 Wn.2d at 538 .

2000App. 368 , 901 P.2d 1079 (1995), the court applied the efficient proximate cause rule to find that where wind-driven rain was a distinct, covered peril under the policy, the policy’s fungus damage exclusion did not necessarily bar recovery for fungus damage.

2000Co., 79 Wash.App. 368 , 901 P.2d 1079 (1995), the court applied the efficient proximate cause rule to find that where wind-driven rain was a distinct, covered peril under the policy, the policy's fungus damage exclusion did not necessarily bar recovery for fungus damage.

2017But I cannot agree that we should extend the efficient proximate cause rule to this case when a majority of this court implicitly declined to do so in Quadrant Corp. v. American States Insurance Co., 154 Wn.2d 165 , 110 P.3d 733 (2005).

2017I agree with the dissent that stare decisis requires us to adhere to that analysis here: "Being faithful to our opinion in Quadrant requires us again to decline to extend the efficient proximate cause rule and instead focus on whether Xia's claim falls within the pollution exclusion." Id.

2017I agree with the dissent that stare decisis requires us to adhere to that analysis here: "Being faithful to our opinion in Quadrant requires us again to decline to extend the efficient proximate cause rule and instead focus on whether Xia's claim falls within the pollution exclusion." Id.

2017But I cannot agree that we should extend the efficient proximate cause rule to this case when a majority of this court implicitly declined to do so in Quadrant Corp. v. American States Insurance Co., 154 Wn.2d 165 , 110 P.3d 733 (2005).

2017Id. 1 Until now, we have applied the efficient proximate cause rule only in first party coverage cases.

2017The majority compares the exclusionary language here to that in Villella v. Public Employees Mutual Insurance Co., 106 Wn.2d 806 , 725 P.2d 957 (1986), and Key Tronic Corp., Inc. v. Aetna (CIGNA) Fire Underwriters Insurance Co., 124 Wn.2d 618 , 881 P .2d 201 ( 1994 ), both of which constituted an attempt to circumvent the efficient proximate cause rule.

2017The majority compares the exclusionary language here to that in Villella v. Public Employees Mutual Insurance Co., 106 Wn.2d 806 , 725 P.2d 957 (1986), and Key Tronic Corp., Inc. v. Aetna (CIGNA) Fire Underwriters Insurance Co., 124 Wn.2d 618 , 881 P .2d 201 ( 1994 ), both of which constituted an attempt to circumvent the efficient proximate cause rule.

2017App. 52, 79 , 322 P.3d 6 (2014).19 And in a recent case, Perez-Crisantos v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., No. 92267-5, 2017 WL 448991 , at *6-*7(Wash. Feb. 2, 2017), the Washington Supreme Court held that "IFCA does not create an independent cause of action for regulatory violations." 9 We reject the argument that the efficient proximate cause rule requires First American to provide coverage.

2016Co. of Am. v. Hirschmann, 112 Wn.2d 621, 628 , 773 P.2d 413 (1989)). ¶10 Here, the facts in Allemand v. State Farm Insurance Cos., 160 Wn.

2012Vision One, 158 Wash. App. at 106, 241 P.3d 429 .

2012Co., 98 Wash.App. 7, 20 , 990 P.2d 414 (1999).

2011Id. ¶ 10 Division One revisited the issue in Roberts v. Allied Group Insurance Co., 79 Wash.App. 323 , 901 P.2d 317 (1995).

1995App. 902 , 866 P.2d 690 , review denied, 124 Wn.2d 1018 (1994) and find that the policy language does not violate the efficient proximate cause rule.