Aggregation Words

CONNECTING WORDS

ARISING FROM

Coxe v Employers' Liability Assurance Company Ltd [1916] 2 KB 629

The words 'caused by' and 'arising from' had always been construed as relating to the proximate cause.

Policy excluded cover for death "directly or indirectly caused by, arising from, or traceable to ... war." This meant the proximate cause.

Scott v Copenhagen Reinsurance Company (UK) Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 688

"Arising from", when coupled with "one event", should be regarded as a relatively strong and significant link".

"Arising from" signifies more than simply a "weak causal connection" – a significant causal link is needed.

The capture of the airport was too remote an event to aggregate. War, or the outbreak of war, was the relevant event and was the cause of the aircraft's destruction and hence the loss.

The unities of cause, place, time and intention were an appropriate test even where one event leads to losses at different times.

The main test is one of intuition and common sense in light of the purpose of the clause ie aggregation of one loss with another.

The Evaggelos TH [1971] 2 Lloyd's Rep 2000

"Donaldson J held that a provision in the charter whereby the charterers indemnified the owners 'from all consequences or liabilities that may arise from the Captain . . . complying with their orders' required the owners to prove that the proximate cause of the loss of their vessel was compliance with such orders. . . ." (Beazley Underwriting Ltd v The Travelers Companies Inc [2011] EWHC 1520 (Comm)).

In the context of a charterparty giving an indemnity, proximate cause had to be shown.

Orient-Express Hotels Ltd v Assicurazioni General SA (UK Branch) (t/a Generali Global Risk) [2010] EWHC 1186 (Comm)

A New Orleans hotel was insured against business interruption losses "directly arising from Damage". The hotel and the surrounding area were damaged by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. However, a curfew was also imposed meaning that even if the hotel had been undamaged, it could not have received visitors.

Hamblen J held that the policy required the ordinary "but for" test for causation to apply. Accordingly, the insured could only recover if it could show that the loss would not have arisen had the damage to the hotel not occurred, and it could do that on the facts.

ARC Capital Partners Ltd v Brit UW Ltd & Anor [2016] EWHC 141 (Comm)

The phrases "arising from" and "in any way involving" must have different meanings, otherwise the latter phrase would be...