If vandals break a window of the insured's pickup truck and subsequent rain damage occurs, what is the insurer's liability?

In this scenario, the key consideration is the cause of the subsequent damages. The vandalism represents a direct action that causes an initial loss, which is the broken window. While the rain damage arises afterward due to the exposed interior of the truck, insurance policies conditionally cover perils based on the cause of loss.

Typically, most insurance policies include a coverage clause known as "peril" or "cause of loss." In this case, the vandalism is the immediate cause of loss that breaks the window, revealing the interior to rain. However, many policies may not cover subsequent damage due to indirect causes unless they specify that such a peril is covered.

Thus, the insurer would likely cover the initial damage caused by the vandals as that is a direct act that caused an instant loss. The rain damage could be seen as an indirect consequence, which may not be covered under most comprehensive policies or could be treated as not being the insurer's responsibility unless the specific policy specifies otherwise.

Understanding this distinction helps to clarify why the insurer would only be liable for the damage caused directly by the vandals, rather than by the rain damage that occurred as a result of that initial vandalism.