The loss in your case was directly caused by the freezing of the liquid, which was due to a change in the ambient temperature of the refrigerator, a result of an accidental bumping of the temperature control dial. The proximate cause of the loss was the accidental bumping of the dial, which immediately set the other causes into inevitable action. The excluded cause of loss, temperature change, was only one of a series of perils that led to the loss. It was not the direct cause of loss, because if the liquid had been in half-full metal vials, the freezing would not have resulted in a loss. The temperature change itself did not directly destroy the test kits as it would in causing butter to go rancid or eggs to spoil.

The argument is bolstered by the absence of the concurrent causation wording, which is present under exclusion 1. This limiting wording reads as follows: “Such loss or damage is excluded regardless of any other cause or event that contributes concurrently or in any sequence to the loss.” Thus an excluded flood, caused by a negligent dam caretaker who forgot to close the dam, cannot be covered under the peril of caretaker's negligence, which is not excluded.

With reference to exclusion 2, the loss of the testing kits was caused concurrently by the un-excluded accidental bumping of the dial, the excluded peril of temperature change, and the un-excluded peril of freezing liquid.