All contracts of general insurance specifically state that the “proximate cause” of the loss or damage has to be insured by the policy before indemnity is granted.

The words “resulting from” does not mean that the cause has to be the proximate cause, whereas “caused by” does.

Where the words of the policy state “directly caused by”, the test is one of proximate cause.

In both the Advisory and Modified versions of the Mark IV and Mark IV ISR wordings, the trigger for a claim under Section 2 – Consequential Loss is “Damage” occurring during the “Period of Insurance”.

Where there is an insured and uninsured cause for the disruption, the typical Business Interruption policy will not respond.

Where a disruption to a business, which is covered by a Business Interruption policy, is extended due to facts outside the Insured’s control and would not have caused a disruption had the first insured event not occurred, the Insured is entitled to an indemnity under a typical Business Interruption policy for the losses arising during the extended period.

There are three separate areas that need to be examined when considering a business interruption claim:

1.       The proximate cause aspect relevant to the event of the peril and the damage therefrom
          - ‘Proximate Circumstance’.

2.       The extent that the interruption arises out of the terms of the contract of insurance
          - ‘Interruption Causation’.

3.       The assessment of the financial loss as insured by the policy and arising from the
          interruption, which is insured - ‘Quantum Calculation’.

Which of the following could be considered as an Increase in Cost of Working under a typical Business Interruption policy?