City of New York Ins. Co. v. Gugenheim
| Citation | 7 S.W.2d 588 |
| Decision Date | 14 July 1928 |
| Docket Number | (No. 693.) |
| Parties | CITY OF NEW YORK INS. CO. v. GUGENHEIM. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Texas |
Action by A. D. Gugenheim against the City of New York Insurance Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.
Thompson, Knight, Baker & Harris, and Pinkney Grissom, all of Dallas, for plaintiff in error.
Spell, Naman & Penland, of Waco, for defendant in error.
Defendant in error instituted this suit, seeking to recover from plaintiff in error damages which he claimed to have suffered to his home by reason of a fire. There was no controversy about the policies of insurance being issued, the fact that defendant in error had suffered damages, or the amount thereof; plaintiff in error's sole contentions being that the fire which caused the damage was a "friendly" fire, and, further, that there was no actual burning, but that the only damage was from smoke and soot. Defendant in error's home was equipped with an oil-burning furnace, which was so arranged it had two compartments. The inner compartment contained the fire and the outer one the air; there being a galvanized iron jacket which held the fire, and on the outside thereof was the compartment which contained the air. The fire in the inner compartment would heat the air in the outside compartment, and the air would then rise and go through the building and thereby heat the house. There was no way for the fire or smoke to get from the fire compartment into the air compartment so long as the furnace was in good repair. The smoke and soot from the fire compartment went out through the smoke vent. It appears that in some way a leak developed whereby oil flowed into the air compartment, and, when the fire in the furnace became hot enough to heat the air sufficiently in the air compartment, it caused the oil which had escaped into the air compartment to ignite, and the smoke and soot from the oil burning in the air compartment went through the air vents into the house and damaged the furniture, fixtures, and walls to the amount agreed upon.
The overwhelming weight of the authorities is that a fire insurance policy covers all damages caused by a hostile fire — that is, one which becomes uncontrollable or breaks out from where it was intended to be and becomes a hostile element — and, where there is such a fire, recovery may be had for resulting losses or damage in regard to which there has been...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bilsky v. Sun Ins. Office, Ltd., of London, England
... ... cause. Hamilton v. Frisco, 300 S.W. 787, 325 Mo ... 107; Cregger v. City of St. Charles, 224 Mo.App ... 232, 11 S.W.2d 750; Kerns v. Dykes, 226 Mo.App. 912, ... 48 ... Scripture v. Lowell Mut. F. Ins. Co., 10 Cush. 356, ... 57 Am. Dec. 111; City of New York Ins. Co. v. Guggenheim ... (Tex. Civ. App.), 7 S.W.2d 588; Pappadakis v ... Netherlands F. & ... ...
-
Mode, Ltd. v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Co.
... ... (Pa.), 160 A ... 711; Stone v. Granite State Fire Ins. Co. (N. H.), 45 A ... If the ... clause "direct loss by * * ... use of the New York standard form of fire insurance policy ... (Smith v. National Fire ... Fidelity & Gas Co. (Conn.) 188 A. 481; City of N. Y ... Ins. Co. v. Gugenheim, (Tex.) 7 S.W.2d 588; Swerling ... v ... ...
-
Mid-Continent Cas. v. Safe Tire Disposal
...Mut. Fire & Storm Ins. Ass'n v. Calhoun, 532 S.W.2d 663, 666 (Tex. Civ. App.-Corpus Christi 1975, no writ); City of New York Ins. Co. v. Gugenheim, 7 S.W.2d 588, 589 (Tex. Civ. App.-Waco 1928, no writ). Thus, in Mid-Continent's view, the hostile fire exception will apply only if Safe Tire i......
-
First Christian Church v. Hartford Mut. Ins. Co.
...uncontrollable or hostile agency. To the same effect is the holding of the Waco Court of Civil Appeals in the case of City of New York Ins. Co. v. Gugenheim, 7 S.W.2d 588.' The case of Spare v. Glens Falls Ins. Co., 137 Conn. 105, 75 A.2d 64, 65, involved a situation similar to that present......