In insurance exclusion clauses requiring that an unroadworthy or unsafe condition 'contributed to' the event, the 'but for' test is not appropriate where there are multiple conjunctive causal factors; the correct approach is whether the condition materially contributed to the event as a matter of common sense, applying March v [name withheld] principles. A trial judge is not entitled to reject uncontradicted and unchallenged expert evidence that a condition contributed to an event without cogent reasons supported by the evidence. Actual knowledge by the insured of an unroadworthy condition satisfies a policy requirement that the condition be 'normally and reasonably detected' by the insured.
The full text is available to signed-in members.