Bower v. Aetna Ins. Co., 1004.

Decision Date01 May 1944
Docket NumberNo. 1004.,1004.
Citation54 F. Supp. 897
PartiesBOWER v. ÆTNA INS. CO.
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas

R. T. Bailey, of Dallas, Tex., for the motion.

J. L. Goggans and D. A. Frank, both of Dallas, Tex., opposed.

ATWELL, District Judge.

Plaintiff declares upon a $25,000 policy of insurance against direct loss or damage by explosion. That the contract covered a house situated on Bordeaux Street, Dallas. That he was away from his home from about December 1, 1941, to about January 8, 1942, and "upon his return he found that there had been an explosion, or explosions, of some kind by which some of the radiators connected to and constituting a part of the hot water circulating system, had been shattered, broken, and parts thereof had been hurled across rooms of said house and water had leaked out, or had been blown out therefrom and frozen upon the walls, floors, stairs and ceilings of said house, causing the damage, * * *. that the explosion, or explosions * * * were of a violent nature and were internal explosions from within outward, and hurling portions of said heating system away from and out of the said radiators and hurling portions of the iron of which it was composed, from two to fifteen feet across the room, or rooms in which the same were located, and that the origin of said explosion, or explosions, is unknown to plaintiff and he is unable to plead any more definitely the kind, character, cause or origin of said explosions or the force or forces causing said explosions, or how the same were produced, but alleges that the explosions which actually took place and caused the damages herein complained of were explosions within the meaning of the term explosion as used in the policy * * * and came within the purview of the contract, * * *."

The defendant moves to dismiss on the ground that it is not able to prepare its defense since the kind, character, cause and origin of the explosion are not pleaded by the plaintiff. Nor does the plaintiff tell what force, or forces, caused the explosion.

Under the terms of the policy, which is the contract between the parties, plaintiff was insured against loss or damages by explosion. The explosion which was excluded in the policy originally was taken out of the exclusion by a rider. That exclusion related to explosions that might occur from steam boilers, pipes and machinery connected therewith and operated thereby. The hot water heaters which the plaintiff claims exploded were, originally, excluded, but such exclusion was deleted, so that the contract covers exactly what happened.

There is no pleading which would indicate that the explosion was from...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Good Canning Co. v. London Guarantee & Accident Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Arkansas
    • February 17, 1955
    ...that each case, of necessity, must be determined upon the basis of the particular facts appearing therein. See, Bower v. Aetna Ins. Co., D.C.Tex., 54 F.Supp. 897; Senn Products Corporation v. Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Co., City Ct., 41 N.Y.S.2d 133; Travellers Indemnity......
  • American Casualty Co. of Reading, Pa. v. Myrick
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • June 15, 1962
    ...Explosion, p. 243; 22 Am.Jur. 126, Explosions: and Explosives § 2. It has been said to be synonymous with bursting. Bower v. Aetna Ins. Co., N.D.Tex., 54 F.Supp. 897; 12 C.J.S. Bursting, p. 760; see Webster's New International Dictionary, burst. It appears that the Texas courts have not att......
  • Paros Props. LLC v. Colo. Cas. Ins. Co., 15-1369
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • August 29, 2016
    ...case, “the bursting [was] caused by excessive pressure, and the pressure [was] caused by pent-up energy.”); Bower v. Aetna Ins. Co. , 54 F.Supp. 897, 898 (N.D. Tex. 1944) (“The application of a force from within the radiators which the radiators, or the pipes, could not resist, and burst, o......
  • Hart-Bartlett-Sturtevant Grain Co. v. Aetna Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • September 10, 1956
    ...at the bottom of a cottonseed-oil tank had become superheated and converted into steam, resulting in an explosion); Bower v. Aetna Ins. Co., D.C.N.D.Tex., 54 F.Supp. 897 (in the absence of insured, water in the hot-water-heating system of insured's house froze and in the process of freezing......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT