"In a direct line, way or manner: straight. Without delay: immediately, presently, absolutely; exactly; precisely".
Dealing with the issue
31 What then was the direct cause of the damage to the laser on the assumed and agreed facts? To my mind, the answer is that upon the proper construction of the subject policy, the direct cause of the damage was the electrical surge which caused that damage. The surge was caused by the cross-arm on the power pole falling onto the wires, allowing them to touch and create the surge. The cross-arm fell onto the conductors because of the fire on the pole. Looked at in this way, I accept that the answer is obvious and straightforward. The electrical surge, I accept, could, in turn, presumably have been caused by a number of elements, not just a fire on a power pole. In other words, it was not necessarily, it seems to me, a natural consequence of the fire, that the power surge took place.
32 Ultimately, the court's decision is clearly assisted by the fact that a close examination of the whole of the policy throws up a variety of descriptions of causal connections, as the plaintiff usefully pointed out in their own written submissions:
· The policy contains a broad spectrum of descriptions of causal connections. The weakest of these is the phrase "directly or indirectly caused by or contributed to by or arising from" under clause 2 of the section headed "General exclusions." The strongest of these is "caused solely as a result of" in clause 6(1)(a)(iii) in the section headed "Electronic Equipment Section".
· Between these two descriptions are a variety of descriptions of causal connections: "caused by" (see, for example, cl 3.5(c) in the "Property Section"), "occasioned by or in consequence of", "arising out of" (see, for example, cl 3.7 of the "Property Section"), "direct result" (see, for example, cl 4.7 of the "Property Section"), "resulting from" (see, for example, cl 2.1 of the "Business Interruption Section", "in consequence of" (cl 3.1 of the "Business Interruption Section"), "caused by or arising out of" (see, for example, cl 2.3 of the "Broadform Liability Section"); "arising directly or indirectly out of or in the course of" (cl 3.1(a) of the "Broadform Liability Section"), "due to" (see, for example, cl 3.3 of the "Broadform Liability Section"), "caused by or naturally resulting from" (cl 5.3(c) of the Electronic Equipment Section"), "occurring by reason of" (cl 6.1 of the "Electronic Equipment Section"), "consequent upon" (cl 2.1 of the "Theft Section"), "attributed to" (cl 3.3 of the "Money Section"), "arising out of or resulting from" (cl 3.4 of the "Money Section"), "directly or indirectly caused by or arising from" (cl 3.14 of the "Broadform Liability Section"), "caused directly or indirectly by" (cl 3.25 of the "Broadform Liability Section"), "directly or indirectly caused to or contributed to by" (cl 7 of the "General Exclusions").
33 It is clearly appropriate for the court to look at the whole of the policy. That examination points up that it was seen as appropriate to differentiate between a variety of descriptions of causal connections. As already noted, in so far as the relevant insuring clause is concerned, it provided: