American Steam Boiler Ins. Co. v. Chicago Sugar Refining Co.
Decision Date | 13 October 1892 |
Docket Number | 34. |
Parties | AMERICAN STEAM BOILER INS. CO. v. CHICAGO SUGAR REFINING CO. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Statement by BUNN, District Judge.
This action is brought upon a policy of insurance issued by the plaintiff in error to the defendant in error on October 18 1889. The loss for which indemnity was claimed under the policy involved a substantial destruction of the buildings and machinery constituting the sugar refinery of the defendant company in Chicago. On the day the policy in suit was issued the sugar refining company held two other policies in the American Steam Boiler Company, which were surrendered upon the issuing of the one in suit. The facts in the case appear mainly from a stipulation of the parties. Other evidence was taken, but the facts depend principally upon the stipulation, and are undisputed. A jury was waived, and the case tried by the court, which handed down its findings in favor of the defendant in error on November 23, 1891 assessing its damages at the sum of $44,241.09, for which sum judgment was entered.
Only the conclusions of law are reviewable in this court. The essential facts as they appear from the stipulation and from the findings of the court are as follows: The American Steam Boiler Insurance Company was incorporated November 5, 1883 under an act of the state of New York passed January 24, 1853, and certain other acts amendatory thereof. On the 18th day of October, 1889, it issued to the defendant in error, the Chicago Sugar Refining Company, a policy as follows:
[Seal]
'Wm. K. Lothrop, President.
'V. R. Schenck, Secretary.
'Countersigned at Chicago, Illinois, this eighteenth day of October, 1889.
'Thatcher & Voight, Managers.'
On the back of the policy, among other covenants and conditions, all made a part of the policy, were the following, which are the only ones material to this case:
'(2) That at all reasonable times the inspectors of this company shall have access to said boiler or boilers, and the said engines, elevators, and machinery connected therewith, on which safety depends; and ample facilities shall be afforded, whenever requested, to said inspectors, for a thorough examination of said boilers, and for the indicating of the said engines, and for the inspection of the said elevators and machinery.'
'(3) That by the term 'explosion,' as used in this policy, is to be understood a sudden and substantial rupture of the shell or flues of the boiler or boilers, caused by the action of steam, and no claim shall be made under this policy for any explosion or loss caused by the burning of the building or steamer containing the boiler or boilers, engines, elevators, or machinery, or for any loss or damage by fire resulting from any cause whatever; nor for any loss or damage which may occur during any invasion, insurrection, riot, or civil or military commotion, or by theft or robbery, or by neglect of assured to use all possible means to save and preserve the property for further loss or damage after the explosion or accident has occurred.'
The following facts were found by the court in regard to the origin of the disaster:
'That on the 27th day of March, 1890, an explosion, accident, or disaster, or whatever name may properly be applied, occurred upon the premises referred to in the policy, the result of which was a substantial destruction of a portion of the machinery, boilers, engines, filters, tanks, converters, etc., described in the policy, and of the buildings in which they were contained, and in loss of life and injury to various persons working in and about the premises, who were employes of the plaintiff.'
That the facts as to the origin of the disaster and its cause are as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Breeden v. Frankford Marine, Accident & Plate Glass Insurance Company
... ... Duke ... v. Harper, 66 Mo. 51; Breeden v. Ins. Co., 110 ... Mo.App. 312; Phelps v. Manecke, ... Chicago Herald Co. v. Bryan, 195 Mo. 576; ... Hubbard ... Merchants Trust & Dep. Co., 34 A. 788; American Casualty Ins. Co.'s ... Case, 82 Md. 535. (4) ... Mo.App. 677; American Steam Boiler Co. v. Chicago, ... etc., 57 F. 294; ... ...
-
New Hampshire Fire Ins. Co. v. Rupard
... ... North American Assurance Company--were defendants in separate ... 51, 22 S.Ct. 22, 46 L.Ed. 74; Amer ... Steam Boiler Ins. Co. v. Chicago Sugar Refining Co., 57 ... ...
-
Dunn v. Standard Life & Accident Insurance Company
... ... provisions, it should be ignored. American Credit ... Indemnity Co. v. Wood, 73 F. 81, 88; Pacific Mutual ... Life Ins. Co. v. McCabe, 162 S.W. 1136, 1138. (2) (a) ... ...
-
Metropolitan Casualty Ins. Co. of New York v. Bergheim
... ... Co., ... 21 Ins.Law J. 472; Am. Steam Boiler Ins. Co. v. Sugar ... Refining Co., 57 F ... proximate cause, as stated in German American Ins. Co. v ... Hyman, and [21 Colo.App. 535] ... ...