What is the "but for" rule primarily used for in legal claims?

The "but for" rule is primarily used in legal claims to identify the proximate cause of harm. This rule establishes a causative link between a defendant's actions and the plaintiff’s injuries by asserting that the harm would not have occurred "but for" the defendant's behavior. In other words, if the defendant had not acted in the way they did, the resulting harm would not have taken place. This concept is crucial in negligence cases, as it helps to determine whether the defendant's conduct was a substantial factor in bringing about the injury.

In contrast, determining insurance premium rates pertains to the financial aspects of insurance underwriting and does not directly relate to causation in tort law. Establishing the presence of negligence involves assessing various factors beyond just causation, such as duty of care and breach, which are broader legal considerations. Evaluating insurance policy coverage limits relates to the extent of protection provided under an insurance policy rather than identifying specific causes of action relating to personal injury or damages. Therefore, the focus of the "but for" rule is specifically on establishing that causal connection necessary to assign liability in legal situations.