The Efficient Proximate Cause Doctrine in California Ten Years After Garvey

November 1, 1999

Reprinted with permission from the Autumn 1999 issue of the Journal of Insurance Coverage. Copr. Aspen Law and Business.

Ten years ago, California courts applied conflicting standards when addressing the question of coverage under an all risk insurance policy in cases where the loss could be attributed to two causes, one an excluded risk and the other a covered risk. In 1989, the California Supreme Court resolved that conflict when it decided Garvey v. State  Farm Fire & Casualty Co.1 There, the court ruled that when a loss is caused by a combination of a covered risk and a specifically excluded risk, the loss is covered only if the covered risk was the "efficient proximate cause" of the loss.

In so holding, the California Supreme Court rejected a developing body of law that had evolved from its holding in State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Co. v. Partridge,2 in which courts applied a "concurrent causation" analysis to first-party property insurance coverage claims. Under the concurrent cause theory, there was coverage if at least one of the identified causes was a non-excluded peril. Instead, the Garvey court reaffirmed and clarified the applicability of the efficient proximate cause analysis the Supreme Court first articulated twenty-six years earlier in Sabella v. Wisler. 3

This article analyzes the current state of the efficient proximate cause doctrine in California. As a background for this discussion, this article briefly revisits the Garvey decision and the development of the efficient proximate cause doctrine in California.

1.770 P.2d 704 (Cal. 1989).
2. 514 P.2d 123 (Cal. 1973).
3. 377 P.2d 889 (Cal. 1963). The "efficient proximate cause" doctrine is often mistakenly referred to as the "concurrent cause" doctrine. Concurrent cause is actually a misnomer because it suggests that the events, actions, or forces must occur simultaneously. The "efficient proximate cause" doctrine as developed by the courts in Garvey and Sabella, applies where the actions, events, or forces occur sequentially.

The articles on our website include some of the publications and papers authored by our attorneys, both before and after they joined our firm. The content of these articles should not be taken as legal advice. The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or official position of Robins Kaplan LLP.

Disclaimer

Scott G. Johnson

Partner

Chair, Minneapolis Insurance Group

Related Publications

May 24, 2022
Briefly: Seeking Fees and Costs While on Appeal
Eric Magnuson, Gregory Voshell - Minnesota Lawyer
May 19, 2022
11th Circ. Ban On Service Awards May Inhibit Class Actions
William Reiss, Dave Rochelson - Law360
May 13, 2022
Trademark Applications and the Murky Waters of Subject Matter Jurisdiction
David Martinez, Zac Cohen - Los Angeles & San Francisco Daily Journal
May 5, 2022
Antitrust Law As A Tool Against Privacy Abuses
Law 360 - William Reiss and Matthew Geyer
First Quarter
ANDA Litigation Settlements
GENERICally Speaking Hatch Waxman Bulletin
Back to Top