In a decision dated 11 December 2025 Justice Klein of the Bahamian Supreme Court ruled in favour of Security & General Insurance Co. Ltd in a case that featured a dispute over the terms of an insurance policy.
In Ronald Deveaux (T/A Bahamas Rubber Stamp Printing) v Security & General Insurance Co. Ltd. 2016/CLE/gen/00818, the Court condensed the primary issue
12. It appeared to me that the primary issue for resolution is whether, on the true construction of the contract of insurance, the loss sustained was a peril covered under the terms of the policy and was not within any of the exceptions or exclusions.
In deciding the case for the Defendant Insurer, represented by Raynard Rigby KC, the Court held as follows:
70. In summary, the principles expressed in the above authorities (which refer to the authorities relied on by the parties) may be distilled as follows. The doctrine of proximate cause provides that, unless the policy provides otherwise, the insurer is only liable for losses proximately caused by an insured peril which is not excepted or excluded under the policy. If there are concurrent proximate causes, one of which is insured and the other excluded, the exclusion generally prevails, subject to the precise wording of the Policy. Furthermore, all of the cases hold that the search for the proximate cause is not the cause that is last in time, nor is it determined on a “but-for” test. It is the cause which is the most effective (or efficient) or dominant in bringing about the loss, as determined based on a common sense and broad view of the facts. Of course, all of these issues are determined against a construction of the policy.
76. Although the above analysis disposes of the claim, I also find that the plaintiff’s reliance on the ‘but for’ test is misconceived. It seems to me to be exactly the kind of false positive the Supreme Court warned about in FCA v Arch. The fact that a hole was created in the roof, while it may have provided an opening that allowed the ingress of the rain, was not in my view a proximate cause of the damage. Had the hole been made and no hurricane was travelling, or there was no rainfall, the damage to the equipment and stock would not have occurred. So it cannot be said that X (the hole in the roof) caused Y (the damage to the equipment and stock). As noted, there may have been no loss or damage at all if there was no rain.
82. Although it is clear that no action will lie in the circumstances, the court observes that in any event no reasonable complaint can be made of the timeline in processing the claim. The plaintiff reported the loss on or about the 10 September 2017, and was notified that the claim was denied by letter to his attorney dated 16 March 2018. The insurers cannot be faulted for requesting proper documentation in relation to the claim and assessment by professional adjusters in order to process the claim. The plaintiff did not provide a properly authenticated estimate for the consideration of the insurer until December 2017. In all the circumstances, this could hardly constitute an inordinate time, allowing a reasonable time for the completion of their investigatory process.
83. For all the reasons given above, the claim for breach of policy for failure to pay damages for the alleged loss is denied and dismissed. The negligence claim in relation to the processing of the claim is misconceived and also dismissed.
In discussing the case, Mr. Rigby KC stated that the decision confirms the legal principles on assessing an insurance loss and determining the proximate loss and causation.
