Workable Rules For Determining Proximate Cause Under Various Reasons Of Insurance Law

The current academic circles generally confused between the "proximate cause" and the " principle of proximate cause". actually, looking for Proximate cause is a kind of the recognition of the fact normative evaluation process. Because of the different legislative background and the policy that the so-called " principle of proximate cause" is not exist. In the practice of insurance, the situation is complex, the reasons for losses are varied, and may be caused by loss of a single reason, it may jeopardize a variety of reasons, may cover areas of risk, except perhaps the risk or policy is not reference to risk, how to accurately find specific cases is the most important proximate cause of the problem.The first situation calls plural causes sequent for loss, it happens when a variety of reasons and in turn causes and effects between have a causal relationship. Typical problems under this situation are Causes and effects of the correlation is not clear and the problem of incentive force remaining differences. In view of this, the author suggested to increase the auxiliary function of judicial authentication in the related questions, and refer to Japanese "participation rule" to quantify the ratio between the various reasons. There is also a class of difficult problems in the situation of plural causes sequent for loss calls Intervening Forces, that can be divided intoIndependent intervention force and Non independent intervention force.The author creatively put forward the solutions in "objective and subjective two levels" in the case of non independent intervention forces. According to this, Answer the question that similar close, close fact, whydifferent courts make completely contradicted judgement. The second situation call plural causes concurrent for loss. Before the concrete analysis,The author through "fishbone diagram analysis " provide the a coexist in polygenic background comb out a clear sequence of methodology. Then summarize and compare some representative methods under plural causes concurrent for loss. Finally draw the conclusion: When a variety of reasons effect respectively, As long as one of the reasons to cause harmful consequences alone, and it belongs to the liability insurance,it means the insurer shall bear full responsibility; If a variety of reasons work together to cause damage, it should take " Partridge-Type Concurrent Causation" to solve the problem.Finally, author analysis of the proximate principle of burden of proof. When the insurer and the insured person identified on the proximate cause of the disagreement, both parties will go to court, how to accurately apply the principle of proximate cause involves the burden of proof allocation. Of course, the reason the insurance burden of proof in proceedings to have such an important position is the special nature and causes of its inseparable. The author of China’s insurance litigation burden of proof in law, in complying with the "who advocates, who burden of proof" on the basis of general principles, step by step analysis of the specific allocation of the burden of proof. In particular, except for liability related to underwriting risk, evidence of insurance coverage and balance problems, how to allocate the burden of proof on proximate cause is more important.