The longer the lapse of the time between the two, the greater will be the likelihood that another act or omission will have intervened to break the chain of causation. will, however, always be a question of fact.
The collapse of buildings is wall is blown down by high winds. The collapse of buildings is wall is blown down by high wind. An ARPI insurer bound by such a term before there before to have to indemnify the insured for this damage damaged by the insurer from the collapse results. , where fire damages a wall and leaves it weakened, and wind blows the wall down several days later, then the lapse in time may mean that the fire is not the proximate cause of the wall falling down (Gaskarthv. Law Union [1876] The negligence of the insured, who failed to take preventive measures to secure the wall, may be a novus actus interveniens which may not be covered by a fire policy. Even with the benefit of the above proviso, an ARPI insurer would not be liable.
- A fire seriously damages a building. A wall is in danger of collapsing onto the neighboring building, so the local authority orders demolition of the wall. During demolition the wall falls on the neighbouring concessions.
West of Scotland Insurance Co. (1828) 7 Shaw 52). This decision is, however, this decision is the same as the fire of the neighboring building. , open to question because the fire would not be the same as it was the fallen but the fallen but for the action of the authority, that that authority failed to exercise due care during the demolition process .
