A client's commercial building is damaged by a lightning strike, causing a fire. The policy has a standard Basic Cause of Loss form. During the claim adjustment, it is discovered that the building also has extensive, pre-existing termite damage that significantly weakened its structure, contributing to the extent of the fire damage. How will the 'concurrent causation' doctrine likely impact this claim?

Correct answer: D. The insurer will attempt to separate the damages and only pay for the portion directly caused by the lightning and fire.

The concurrent causation doctrine states that if a loss is caused by two or more perils simultaneously, and at least one of those perils is covered while another is excluded (or not covered), coverage may still apply. However, most modern property policies include anti-concurrent causation language, specifically excluding losses where an excluded peril (like earth movement or inherent vice/deterioration, which termite damage falls under) contributes to the loss, even if a covered peril (like fire) also contributes. In the absence of such specific anti-concurrent language, or if the policy is ambiguous, the insurer would typically try to apportion the damage, covering only the portion directly attributable to the covered peril (lightning/fire) and excluding the portion due to the pre-existing, non-covered termite damage.