An excepted peril is one which is specifically excluded by the contract.
Where the proximate cause of the loss is an insured peril, which is followed by an excepted peril, then any loss occasioned by the excepted peril will not be covered by the policy. Similarly, where the proximate cause is an excepted peril which is followed by an insured peril, the loss will not be covered because the causative factor of the loss is not covered.
In many cases a proximate cause of the loss can be isolated from the chain of circumstances leading up to the loss, and there is a school of thought which indicates that there must always be a dominant cause and that it is the duty of the court to discover it. However, it is now generally accepted that a loss may have more than one proximate cause. Whether or not any loss is covered will depend upon whether the proximate cause is positively excluded from the ARPI policy.
Where an excepted peril and an insured peril operate as concurrent proximate causes, the exception will prevail so that the loss will not be covered, presumably on the basis that the particular words of exclusion govern the general words of coverage {Wayne Tank & Pump Co. Ltd. v. Employers’ Liability Assurance Corporation [1974] QB 57). The only way around this situation is for the insured to distinguish the consequences of the insured peril from those of the excepted peril, if this can be done.
Finally, where an excepted peril is followed by a break in the chain of causation, and then by an insured peril, the insurer will be liable to pay the loss proximately caused by the insured peril from the date of that peril, i.e. after the break in causation. The converse is true where an insured peril is followed by an excepted peril after a break, as would normally be the case
