When Company is Liable When Company Not Liable.

fire and was an incident of it. Washburn something just like lightning strike. The v. Ins. Cos., 9 Ins. L. J. 761; 2 Fed. Rep. | line of light ran into the office, then back 633; Washburn v. Artisans' Ins. Co., 9 in the receiving room, then the whole Ins. L. J. 68 (U. S. Cir.); Washburn v. thing was on fire. The office did not take Western Ins. Co., 9 Ins. L. J. 425 (U. S. fire at first, but burned down afterwards. Cir.) The stills of the refinery were running at the time. At the time the fire began there was no explosion at all. It burned about five minutes, when explosions could be heard in the agitator and receiver. He saw the flash of fire first in the office as he was standing a little from the door, and from there it ran into the main building through the door in the brick wall, and then the whole of the inside of the main building took fire. He thought if the door in the brick wall had been shut, the fire would not have got in, but he could not get there soon enough to shut the door. Held, that the fire was not occasioned by an explosion. Smiley v. Citizens' Fire Ins. Co., 14 W. Va. 33.

8.- Where under the policy the company was not responsible for loss caused by explosion, and it appeared that by the explosion of the boilers the building caught fire, which was extinguished, but broke out a second and third time within two days, held, that the existence of the fire as an effect of the explosion must be presumed to have continued as such an effect, in the absence of contrary proof, and the insurer was not liable. Tanneret v. Merchants' Ins. Co., 34 La. Ann. 249.

9.- Where a fire, within the meaning of a policy, precedes and is the cause of an explosion, the insurer is liable to the assured for the damages done by both fire and explosion. *La Force v. Williams City F. Ins. Co., 43 Mo. App. 518.

10.- A policy of insurance which contains no exception of loss by explosion covers a loss by fire communicated, either by matches or a lighted gas jet, to inflammable gas, which has escaped and filled the room, causing its explosion. *Renshaw v. Missouri State Mut. F. & M. Ins. Co., 20 Ins. L. J. 385; 103 Mo. 595; 15 S. W. Rep. 945.

11. When company is liable. When policy provides that company should not be liable for an explosion by gunpowder it must be construed to be applicable only to a fire originating from such an explosion in the building insured. When the latter is already burning and to prevent the spread of the flames in the absence of water, gunpowder is used to blow it up, company is liable. Greenwald v. Ins. Co., 3 Phil. 323 (Pa.)

13.- When a loss is occasioned by dropping of a match into a keg of gunpowder, damage being partly caused by the explosion of the gunpowder and partly by the gunpowder setting fire to stock insured, held, that entire loss was covered by the insurance against fire, and part was not excepted as being exempt on account of explosion. Hobb v. Guardian Ins. Co., 12 Duval, 631 (Can. Sup.)

14.- Where the policy provided that the company was not to be liable for loss caused by explosion unless followed by a fire, and a fire broke out causing an explosion, whereby the insured property was destroyed, held, that the policy covered the loss by fire. Washburn v. Miami Valley Ins. Co., 2 Flippin, 664 (U. S. Cir.)

15. An exemption of liability in a policy of fire insurance, "for loss in case of fire happening by any insurrection ... or explosions of any kind whatever," does not extend to a loss by fire resulting from the explosion of a lamp. *Heffron v. Kittanning Ins. Co., 132 Pa. 580.

12.- Policy insured a petroleum refinery and contained usual condition providing that the company should not be liable for a loss occasioned by explosions 16. When company not liable. of any kind. From the evidence of the Where sugar and molasses, contained in only witness sworn as to the origin of a sugar house and covered by an ordinary the fire it appeared that he was stand-fire policy, are destroyed by an explosion ing in front of the boiler as the fireman of the steam boilers used in manufacturwas engaged in feeding it. Just as the ing sugar; the damage having been profireman shut up the furnace door he saw duced by the explosion and not by fire,

When Company Not Liable.

the insurers will not be responsible. Mil-sues, and then for the loss or damlaudon v. New Orleans Ins. Co., 4 La. age by fire only." Plaintiff was enAnn. 15. gaged in business of rectifying spirits.

17.- A policy against fire provided There was a small lamp standing in "that the insurer would not be liable the building brought there by perfor any loss occasioned by the explo- son repairing the machinery. Vapor sion of a steam boiler." The fire was caused by an explosion of a steam boiler in the manufactory insured. Held, that it was a loss within the excepted peril mentioned in the condition, and could not, therefore, be recovered. St. John v. American Mut. Marine & Fire Ins. Co., 1 Duer, 371; affi'd, 11 N. Y. 516.

from the works, coming in contact with the lamp caused an explosion which blew off the roof and blew down the walls and greatly injured the machinery. Soon after a fire started, but the damage by the fire was slight compared to that caused by explosion. Jury found the damage caused by each separately. Held, company not liable for amount of damage found to have been caused by the explosion. It seems had the explosion occurred during the progress of a fire rule might be different. Briggs v. N. B. & M. Ins. Co., 53 N. Y. 446; 2 Ins. L. J. 929; affi'g, 66 Barb. 325.

18.- Where a fire did not occur on the premises insured, but broke out in a contiguous building and caused an explosion of gunpowder, which by the concussion of the air injured the building insured, such injury is not covered by the policy. If, however, the explosion had been occasioned by a fire upon the premises insured, the loss occasioned by the explosion would be within the policy. Caballero v. Home | sulting from the explosion; held that unMut. Ins. Co., 15 La. Ann. 217.

19.- Where, by the terms of the policy, insuring against loss or damage by fire, "on the building occupied as an india rubber factory, and on property contained therein, and on machinery, tools, steam engine, and shafting," it is provided that the company "shall not be liable to make good any loss or damage by fire which shall happen or arise by any explosion; " and where one of the conditions forming part of the policy also declares, that "neither will this company be answerable for loss or damage by explosion of any kind," and where the insured premises and property are destroyed, during the life of the policy, by a fire which " originated from, and was caused by an explosion of one of the boilers of the steam engine, belonging to and used in the said india rubber factory, and covered by said policy," the company is not liable for the loss, even though a steam engine was necessary, and ordinarily used in the carrying on of an india rubber factory. Hayward v. Liverpool & London Fire & Life Ins. Co., 7 Bosw., 385; affi'd, 2 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 349; 3 Keyes, 456 (N. Y.)

20.- Policy provided that the company should not be liable for loss caused by "explosions of any kind, unless fire en

21.- Where damage was caused by an explosion of gunpowder accidentally set fire to, and by fire, subsequently re

der the 11th statutory condition, defendants were not liable except for damage caused by the after fire. Hobbs v. Insurance Cos., 11 Ont. App. 741, (Can.) below, 7 Ont. 634; Hobbs v. Northern Assu. Co., 8 Id., 343.

22.- Policy contained condition that no loss is to be paid in case of collision, except fire ensue, and then only for the loss and damage by fire. And that no loss is to be paid arising from petroleum or other explosive oils," and covered property in an express car attached to a train on the Hudson River R. R., on its way to Albany from New York. The train came into collision with an oil car which, by the breaking of its axle, had been thrown from the other track. Immediately the oil ignited and burst into flames which destroyed most of the train, including property insured. Held, that the loss was not covered by the policy. Imperial Ins. Co. v. Express Co., 5 Otto, 227 (U. S.)

23.- No recovery can be had for damages caused by explosion, although same be caused by fire. The condition in question read, "this company shall not be liable for loss by riot . . . or (unless fire ensues, and in that event for the damage by fire only) by explosion of any kind."

*Miller v. London &Lancashire Ins. Co., caused the destruction of the boat by 41 Ill. App. 395.

burning; held, that as the explosion was caused by fire, the latter was the proximate cause of the loss. Waters v. Louisville Ins. Co., 11 Pet. 213 (U. S.)

Greenwald

(Pa.)

24. Destruction of building. By the sudden combustion of inflammable gas an explosion took place in one of the upper stories of the building insured, which was 29. The insurer is liable, where a of such force as to lift up the roof over the house is blown up with gunpowder to rear part of the building, to blow outward stop the spread of fire; there being no the larger portion of the walls on the two means of extinguishing the fire by water. sides next the streets, and it caused the in- The clause in the policy excluding loss by stantaneous fall of the whole roof. The in- explosion of gunpowder, applying only to terior partitions and contents of the rooms, a fire originating from the explosion of including a stove with a coal of fire burn- gunpowder. It is like a loss by water, ing therein, fell in a mass of ruins upon the first fire is the proximate cause. the assured's shop in the lower story. ImV. Ins. Co., 3 Phil. 323 mediately after the explosion and fall, the fire caused thereby broke out in the fall and ruins and destroyed the property of the insured. Policy contained usual provision making it liable for the damage caused by fire after an explosion, and also, in addition, the following: "If a build-extensive fire. The explosion set fire to a ing shall fall, except as the result of a fire, all insurance by this company on it or its contents shall immediately cease and determine." Held, that this last provision did not include the case of the destruction of a building by an explosion within the building itself and of a fire immedi- 31.- Loss by explosion was excepted in ately ensuing upon and connected with a policy against fire. An explosive mixsuch an explosion. Dows v. Fanueil Hall | ture of whisky vapor and air coming in Ins. Co., 127 Mass. 346.

25. A policy against fire includes loss by demolition caused by an explosion which is the direct result of an antecedent fire. *Renshaw v. Fireman's Ins. Co., 33 Mo. App. 394.

30.- A policy insuring cotton in a warehouse, excepted losses by fires by means of explosions. An explosion took place in a warehouse across the street, scattering combustibles, resulting in an

third building, from which the building containing the cotton caught. Held, there was no new cause intervening, and the explosion was the causa proxima, and the insurers are not liable. Insurance Co. v. Tweed, 7 Wallace, 44 (U. S.)

contact with a gas jet, immediately exploded, causing a fire which destroyed the premises. Held, that the explosion being the efficient cause, the policy did not cover the loss. The explosion was like the "crack of a gun," yet, being of sufficient force to result in loss, though it had not rent the building asunder, was still an explosion. United F. L. & M. Ins. Co. v. Foote, 22 Ohio St. 340.

26. Under a policy which insures against fire originating in any cause, a loss occasioned by the ignition of an explosive substance by an innocent fire is within the risks covered by the policy. Id. 32. Question for jury. Whether dam27.— Under the language of the present | age caused by an explosion or by fire, or (N.Y.) form of policy, the decision in Waldeck v. Springfield Fire and M. Ins. Co., 12 Ins. L. J. 177; 56 Wis. 96, upholding a certain condition terminating the insurance on the occurrence of an explosion, would not seem to be applicable. The principle, however, would seem to apply in case of a building falling, except as a result of fire. See section seven, Fallen Building, infra, p. 352.

whether the one preceded the other, or whether building fell prior to either proper questions for a jury. Transatlantic Fire Ins. Co. v. Dorsey, 12 Ins. L. J. 537; 56 Md. 70.

33. Cross references. Section one.

Subd. VI. Loss or damage. Nos. 12, 15, 22.

Subd. XIII. Construction. No. 75.

28. Proximate cause. Where a steam-Section five.

boat was insured against "loss or damage Subd. III. Increase of hazard. No. by fire," and an explosion of gunpowder 107.

Location of Risk - Corporate Authority.

SECTION VII.

If a building or any part thereof fall, except as the result of fire, all insurance by this policy on such building or its contents shall immediately cease.

New York Standard Form.

I. FALLEN BUILDING.

When building falls.
Fall of part of building.
Burden of proof.
Evidence.

Cross references.

1. When building falls. A policy of insurance upon a building is an insurance upon the building as such, and not upon the materials of which it is composed. If, from any defect of construction or overloading, the building fall into ruins, and subsequently the materials take fire, the insurer is not liable for the loss. Nave v. Home Mut. Ins. Co., 37 Mo. 431.

2.- Building must cease to be such to be "fallen" within meaning of the policy. So long as standing, however depreciated, it is not fallen. Firemen's Ins. Co. v.

Sholom, 80 Ill. 558.

rested. By the giving way of the piers of the cellar in the eastern part of building, without the agency of fire, the beam or girder resting thereon fell down near the ground, bringing with it the floors and partitions and roof above, with the goods and merchandise in each story, in a mixed and confused mass, excepting only very small portions of some of the floors and of the roof and a single case of goods. Only the outer walls of this building, of which the brick partition walls separating it from the adjoining building was one, and an elevator five feet square in one corner, were uninjured by the fall. After the fall the fire broke out which caused the injury, for which recovery was sought in this action, to the goods which had fallen, and to the elevator and to the surrounding walls, with the doors and windows therein, which remained standing. The west half of the building remained, in all its parts, undisturbed and uninjured. Held, that action could not be maintained, and that there must be judgment for defendant. Huck v. Globe Ins. Co., 127 Mass. 306.

3. The policy contained provision that "if building shall fall, except as the result of a fire, all insurance on it or its contents, shall immediately cease and determine." The eastern and western 4. Fall of part of building. Insurance halves of the insured building were sub- against fire was effected on goods constantially distinct, separated from each tained in a store; one of the walls gave other by a brick partition which extended way, and half of the store and the whole from the front to the rear and from cellar of the adjoining building fell; before there to roof, though with doors of communica- was time to remove the goods, fire broke tion in each story, and each of the two out in the adjoining building, and commuparts or buildings were capable of stand-nicated with the insured premises. Held, ing or falling by itself. In each of these that the insurers were liable for damage two parts or buildings midway between from fire, and from water used to exthe partition wall and the end wall there tinguish it, to goods not displaced or inwas a beam or girder in each floor, ex-jured by the fall. Lewis v. Springfield tending from the front to the rear, sup- Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 10 Gray, 159 ported by four brick piers in the cellar (Mass.) and by wooden posts in each story, and upon which the beams of the floors

5.- Where a portion of building falls, leaving three-fourths still standing, it