Given that all claims must be caused by chance to be covered by any insurance, it might be thought that a deliberately caused event that gives rise to a claim would not entitle the insured to payment. This is not always the case: to avoid payment, the insurer will need to show that the damage was intentionally caused to the insured property.

– A fire that starts unintentionally in a building emits a considerable amount of smoke, which damages the goods in a neighboring warehouse. This is clearly a fluke and the immediate cause of the smoke damage is fire.

– A bonfire is deliberately lit, and its smoke causes damage to goods in a warehouse. The immediate cause of the loss is fire, but there was nothing burning that should not be burning, and the smoke was not from a fire in the sense of “fire” on a fire policy. Proximate cause is not a fluke and any claim could be duly

refused.

– Banknotes and jewelry are hidden in an unmade fire on a grate, for safety. The insured then lights the fire, forgetting about valuables, which are damaged. The fire was meant to be in the fireplace and hadn’t breached its boundaries. The test, however, is whether the insured intended the insured property to catch fire. The fire is clearly the proximate cause of the loss and its damage to the insured property is a casualty, for which the insured could recover under a fire policy (Harrisv. Poland). [1941] 1 All ER 204).

– The sugar is being refined by heating it on a stove. An employee fails to open the draft plate, so the stove overheats and the sugar goes bad, but it doesn’t light.

The excessive heat and smoke that damaged the sugar is not fire damage because nothing has ignited that should not have ignited and because the fire in the stove had not breached its limits (Austin v. Drewe (1816) 6 Taunt 436). Any claim under a fire policy could be denied