Cole v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 05 December 1933 |
| Docket Number | No. 59.,59. |
| Citation | 265 Mich. 246,251 N.W. 400 |
| Parties | COLE et ux. v. UNITED STATES FIRE INS. CO. et al. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Kent County, in Chancery; Willis B. Perkins, Judge.
Suit by Earl R. Cole and another against the United States Fire Insurance Company and another. From a decree in favor of the plaintiffs, the defendants appeal.
Affirmed in accordance with opinion.
Argued before the Entire Bench.
Adrian W. Verspoor, of Grand Rapids, for appellees.
I cannot agree with the result reached by Mr. Justice WEADOCK.
The house was damaged by both explosion and fire. Plaintiffs recovered for the whole damage on the theory it was all a fire loss. Defendants denied liability for that part of the damage caused by the explosion. The proofs attempted no determination of the loss attributable to each.
The facts are undisputed. The events in sequence were that Sickrey scattered gasoline in the basement with the purpose of burning the house, he went outside, threw a lighted match through the open window, the flame caused the gasoline vapor to ignite, an explosion and fire resulted, each causing damage.
The policy insured ‘against all direct Loss or Damage, by fire,’ except, etc. The insurer is not liable for loss occurring ‘by explosion or lightning unless fire ensue, and, in that event, for loss or damage by fire only.’
The general rule is: ‘Under a provision of the latter character, if the fire precedes the explosion and the explosion is an incident thereto, the fire is the direct or proximate cause of the injury by the explosion, and the insured is entitled to recover for his entire loss; but, if the explosion precedes the fire and is not caused by it, he can, under the express terms of the policy, only recover for that proportion of the damages resulting from the fire alone.’ 14 R. C. L. p. 1218. Judson v. Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 243 Mich. 458, 220 N. W. 783; 26 C. J. 344; notes in 38 L. R. A. (N. S.) 474; 13 A. L. R. 883; 44 A. L. R. 870; 65 A. L. R. 934.
The general rule, however, does not solve our problem. It is held that, where an explosion of gas is caused by an innocent flame, like a lighted lamp or match, the damage therefrom is an explosion, not a fire loss under the policy. Ross v. L. & L. & G. Ins. Co., 83 N. J. Law, 340, 84 A. 1050; Briggs v. N. A. M. Ins. Co., 53 N. Y. 446;Zamboni v. Imp. Dealers' Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 174 Minn. 122, 218 N. W. 457. This ruling is in harmony with the construction that the policy does not insure against innocent or friendly fire. Harter v. Phoenix Inc. Co., 257 Mich. 163, 241 N. W. 196. However, where a lighted match, carelessly thrown into a keg of gun powder, caused an explosion and fire, the whole damage was held to be a fire loss. Hobbs v. Northern Assurance Co., 12 Canada Supreme Court, 631. The negligence converted the flame into a hostile fire.
The case at bar is quite unusual, and does not fit into any of the reported cases. The lighted match was a hostile element, intentionally criminal. The gasoline was not an innocent occupant of the house. It was a malicious enemy, introduced specifically as an instrumentality to burn the building. Both the lighted match and gasoline were so intended and so resulted. When the flame from the match set fire to the gasoline vapor, the elements of destruction by fire were in full operation. The fact that an unexpected explosion occurred does not prevent the damage being wholly a fire loss because it happened as an incident of the burning and was subsequent to the first hostile fire which, in uninterrupted operation, caused the conflagration. The whole damage was within the policy as a fire loss.
Defendants raise other points in connection with liability but, under the findings of fact by the court, amply supported by the testimony, and repeated decisions of this court, they need no discussion. However, defendants urge that the decree is erroneous in providing joint judgment against the defendants instead of adjudging pro rata liability and in failing to provide for subrogation.
The court recognized the right of subrogation, and suggested that counsel present their views. Evidently it was not done. If counsel desire to propose amendments to the decree in these respects, they will be considered on settlement; otherwise the decree is affirmed, with costs to plaintiffs.
On September 28, 1926, plaintiffs entered into a land contract with Thomas N. Sickrey for the sale of certain real estate at No. 4727 Division avenue, county of Kent. The contract provided that Sickrey was to keep the buildings insured against loss by fire, and, in the event of loss, the insurance to be paid to plaintiffs.
On October 2, 1926, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bilsky v. Sun Insurance Office, Limited
...may recover for the resulting loss and damage. Gordon v. Northwestern National Ins. Co. (Mo. App.), 77 S.W. (2d) 512; Cole v. Ins. Co., 265 Mich. 246, 251 N.W. 400; Pennsylvania Co. v. Ohio Farmers Ins. Co., 7 Fed. Supp. 701; Hobbs v. Northern Assurance, 12 Canada Supplement 631; Kniseley v......
-
Bilsky v. Sun Ins. Office, Ltd., of London, England
... ... appellants ... (1) In ... an action on a policy of fire insurance, the burden is upon ... the defendant to prove that the loss and damage claimed falls ... Gordon v. Northwestern ... National Ins. Co. (Mo. App.), 77 S.W.2d 512; Cole v ... Ins. Co., 265 Mich. 246, 251 N.W. 400; Pennsylvania ... Co. v. Ohio Farmers Ins. Co., 7 ... insured or some one acting for him. Rather the case before us ... is one, in accordance with the defense set up in the answer, ... where the loss did not fall ... ...
-
Avery v. American Auto. Ins. Co.
... ... American Automobile Insurance Company, a Corporation, and American Automobile Fire Insurance Company, a Corporation No. 38098 Supreme Court of Missouri November 10, 1942 ... 291, 125 N.W. 264; German-American ... Ins. Co. v. Hyman, 42 Colo. 156, 94 P. 27; Cole v ... U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 265 Mich. 246, 251 N.W. 400; ... Rossini v. Security Mut. Fire Ins ... ...
-
Mode, Ltd. v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Co.
... ... a corporation; GLENS FALLS INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation; NATIONAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD, a corporation; THE MERCHANTS FIRE INSURANCE ... (Pa.), 160 A ... 711; Stone v. Granite State Fire Ins. Co. (N. H.), 45 A ... If the ... clause "direct loss by * * ... Ins. Co., (Mass.) 64 Mass. 356, 10 Cush. 356, 57 Am ... Dec. 111; Cole v. N. S. F. Ins. Co., (Mich.) 251 ... N.W. 400; Way v. Abington Mutual F ... statute." ... The ... question before us is in no way affected by what may, or may ... not, be found in "the form ... ...