(“An event ‘causes' a loss within the meaning of [a] policy if it is the proximate cause of that loss.”); Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited, Inc. v. Charter Oak Fire Ins. Co., No. 13-CV-1570, 2014 WL 3958080, at *8 n.5 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 13, 2014) (applying New York law and noting that where a policy “exclude[s] damage ‘caused by or resulting from' specified events,” the court must “analyze whether an excluded event was the proximate or dominant cause of the loss”); Home Ins. Co. v. Am. Ins. Co., 537 N.Y.S.2d 516, 517 (App. Div. 1989) (“The phrase ‘caused by . . . [or] resulting from' in reference to an excluded peril requires that the insurer prove that the excluded peril . . . is the proximate cause of the loss.
But where, as here, "the Policy includes an anti-concurrent clause, there is no need for the court to undertake this causation inquiry." Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited, Inc. v. Charter Oak Fire Ins. Co.,No. 13 Civ. 1570(ARR), 2014 WL 3958080, at *8 n. 5 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 13, 2014) ; see also Boazova v. Safety Ins. Co.,462 Mass. 346, 968 N.E.2d 385, 394 n. 4 (2012) ("The inclusion of an 'anticoncurrent cause' provision ... is designed to circumvent the doctrine of efficient proximate cause whereby coverage is afforded as long as the predominant cause of the loss is a covered peril.").Next, Lantheus argues that the ensuing loss provision restores coverage if Lantheus "come[s] forward with evidence of covered damageafter the alleged excluded peril even if the earlier excluded period was also a 'but-for' cause."