The insured must mitigate the insured loss, when possible. Failure to do so could allow the insurer to say that the loss was not caused directly by an insured peril but was the fault of the insured. However, doing so could increase the loss or cause a loss that is not covered by the policy. You will be able to recover if you acted reasonably and the loss may still be directly related to the insured risk, so that you have not taken any action constituting a navus actus interueniens.

– A storm knocks down the gable wall of a wooden building. The falling wall breaks electrical wiring causing short circuits and sparks, starting a fire in the wooden building. The fire department uses water hoses to put out the fire and cool neighboring buildings. However, the water damages the unburned contents of the wooden building and neighboring buildings. There is a direct line of causation between storm and water damage (Stanley v. Western Insurance Co. (1868) LR 3 Ex 71).

– A fire starts in a building and the insured throws furniture out a window to try to save it. The piece of furniture is damaged when it hits the ground.

Positive action by the insured to avoid or mitigate a loss generally does not break the chain of causation, as long as he acts reasonably. Thus, the proximal cause of loss is fire. Even if the policy excludes coverage for property removed from the premises, the exclusion will not apply when the insured property is removed for its own safety (Marsdenw. City & County Assurance Co. [1866] LR 1CP 232). Similarly, if the property is stolen soon after, the loss is covered by fire insurance (Levy v. Baillie (1831) 7 Bing 349) unless the insurer can show that the insured acted unreasonably by failing to take measures to prevent theft or to minimize other damage, for example from the weather, since theft or damage from the weather would be a new act that breaks the chain.

– A fire triggers a fire alarm. Employees leave the building but the ongoing production process cannot be delayed or stopped without damaging assets. The proximate cause of any damage to goods resulting from a stoppage in the production process would be fire. However, if the fire alarm falsely sounded or there was no reason for the employees to leave the building, the immediate cause of the damage to the goods being processed would not be the fire, since the risk itself has not started (Watson & Sons Ltd. v. Firemen’s Fund Insurance Co. of San Francisco [1922] 2KB 355). The immediate cause of the damage caused by the exit after a false fire alarm is the negligence of the person who activates it. This will always be a matter of fact.