In public liability insurance, the 'Occurrence' causing property damage is the proximate event leading to the damage, not a remote link in the chain of causation; a 'but for' test is insufficient. The efficacy exclusion (excluding liability for failure of a product to fulfil its intended use) does not apply where the insured's liability is for damage done to property by the product, as distinct from the product's failure to achieve its intended purpose. An insurer's letter advising the insured to engage its own lawyers pending determination of indemnity constitutes consent to the incurring of defence costs.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 3 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 3 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.