Concurrent causes

In Orient-Express Hotels Ltd v Assicurazioni General SA [2010] EWHC 1186 (Comm), Hamblen J considered two issues of construction regarding the scope of cover under a property damage and business interruption policy in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. In his judgment the judge considered the limits of ‘but for’ causation, though ultimately this case did not fall outside those limits. The case is discussed by Nicholas Davidson QC and Shail Patel of 4 New Square.

Orient-Express: the facts

The claimant was the owner of a luxury hotel situated near the French Quarter in New Orleans. In the autumn of 2005 Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans, resulting in devastation to much of the city, including the area surrounding the claimant’s hotel. The hotel itself suffered significant physical damage from wind and water. The hurricane also resulted in a curfew being imposed on 27 August 2005, following which the city was mandatorily evacuated, reopening in late September 2005. As a result of these events the claimant suffered significant loss of profits. However, the occurrence of each of these events alone would have caused that loss of profits.