Pennsylvania Subscriber

One example comes from a court case that was important in establishing the anti-concurrent causation language in B.1, Safeco Ins. Co. v. Guyton, 692 F.2d 551 (C.A. Cal. 1982). In that case, flood waters caused damaged, and the flood was caused by a third party's negligent maintenance of flood controlled structures. The negligent maintenance was considered to be a covered peril on the policy (this was a homeowners form), so because there was one covered and one not covered peril that occurred to cause the damage, the court found that the loss was covered. These types of court decisions are part of what prompted language like that found in the introduction to B.1. exclusions to be included, so it would be clear that the exclusions applied, even if a covered peril also contributed to the loss.