However, other courts have evaluated the particular order more closely, finding that the exclusion does not apply where the order was without legal authority. See Am. Cent. Ins. Co. v. Stearns Lumber Co., 140 S.W. 148, 150 (Ky. 1911) (finding that an exclusion for losses due to an "order of any civil authority" did not preclude coverage for a building that burned down because a marshal set it on fire to force suspects they were engaged in a gunfight with to exit, because the order was outside of the marshal's legal authority); In re W. Elecs., Inc., 128 B.R. 905, 912 (Bankr. D.N.J. 1991) ("[T]he governmental acts exclusion hinges upon the propriety of the seizure."). West Virginia has an interest in having its own courts make the decision on how broadly to read this exclusion because it involves a determination related to the behavior and discretion of state and local government agencies and actors.

While no Pennsylvania courts have examined the applicability of Government Acts Exclusions in insurance policy contracts, other courts have held, inter alia, that in order for such a Government Acts Exclusion to apply, the government order must have been lawful, and authorities must have acted within the bounds of the governmental order. See West Elecs., Inc. v. Nat. Union Fire Ins. Co., 128 B.R. 905, 911 (Bankr. D.N.J. 1991) ("only acts which arise out of lawful orders will prevent liability" under the insurance policy's government acts exclusions); Bankers Fire Marine Ins. v. Bukacek, 123 So. 2d 157, 161-63 (Ala. 1960) (determining that a government "order is the cause of the loss and [the] insurer is not liable when the loss is the unintended result of an act, done as directed, in execution of a lawful order made in good faith and within the apparent scope of the powers of the civil authority issuing the order," and stating that an order cannot be the cause of the loss when the act done is "not one the civil authority is authorized by law to do or order to be done"); Alton v. Mfrs. Merchants Mut. Ins. Co., 624 N.E. 2d. 545, 546-47 (Mass. 1993) (concluding that an insurance policy's government acts exclusion applied where the police were executing a "legal order of governmental authority" and where plaintiff made no contention that damage was done pursuant to an invalid search or that police officers

Prosser and Keeton, The Law of Torts, § 43 at 297 (5th ed. 1984). Cases discussing proximate causation and the awarding of compensatory damages include: People Express Airlines, Inc. v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 100 N.J. 246, 495 A.2d 107 (N.J. 1985) (there exists a duty of care to take reasonable measures to avoid risk of causing economic damages, and failure to adhere to this duty allows liability for economic damages proximately caused without physical damage); see also In re West Electronics, Inc., 128 B.R. 905 (Bankr.D.N.J. 1991) (Judge Gindin stated proximate cause or legal cause is concept which limits liability on the basis of reasonableness and foreseeability).