Milton Mitchell v. Potomac Insurance Company of Georgetown
Decision Date | 11 November 1901 |
Docket Number | No. 51,51 |
Citation | 183 U.S. 42,22 S.Ct. 22,46 L.Ed. 74 |
Parties | MILTON C. MITCHELL, Piff. in Err. , v. POTOMAC INSURANCE COMPANY OF GEORGETOWN, D. C |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. Samuel Maddox for plaintiff in error.
Mr. J. Holdsworth Gordon for defendant in error.
This is an action brought by the plaintiff in error upon a policy of insurance issued by the defendant. On the trial the insurance company had a verdict upon which judgment was entered, and, the court of appeals of the District of Columbia having affirmed it (16 App. D. C. 241), the plaintiff has brought the case here. The policy was for $5,000 on the plain- tiff's stock in trade, which was destroyed on September 27, 1896. The property insured was described in the written part of the policy as follows:
'On his stock of stoves and their findings, tins, and tinware, tools of trade, and such other goods kept for sale in a first-class retail stove and tin store, situate No. 3,108 M street, Georgetown, D. C.
'Privilege granted to keep not more (than) five (5) barrels of gasoline or other oil or vapor.'
The policy also contained the following printed indemnity clause:
'Against all such immediate loss or damage as may occur by fire to the property specified, not exceeding the sum insured, nor the interest of the assured in the property, except as hereinafter provided. . . .'
In finer print are the following conditions and exceptions, among others:
'It being covenanted as conditions of this contract that this company . . . shall not be liable . . . for loss caused by lightning or explosions of any kind unless fire ensues, and then for the loss or damage by fire only.
'Or, if gunpowder, phosphorus, naphtha, benzine, or crude earth or coal oils are kept on the premises, or if camphene, burning fluid, or refined coal or earth oils are kept for sale, stored, or used on the premises, in quantities exceeding one barrel at any one time without written consent, . . . this policy shall be void.'
The damage to the insured stock amounted to $4,568.50, and was due to the falling of the building and the crushing of the stock as hereafter detailed. The defendant denied liability on the ground that the falling of the building and injury to the stock had been caused solely by explosion, no fire ensuing, and was therefore excepted from the policy.
An extra premium was charged for the gasoline privilege.
The plaintiff in error conducted a business at 3,108 M street, Georgetown, D. C., in a two-story-and-attic brick structure, his stock consisting of stoves and tinware, and he did besides a general repairing business. There was a cellar under the build- ing divided into two compartments by a division, with room for a doorway, but there was no door between the divisions. The gasoline which the insurance policy permitted the plaintiff to keep was stored in the cellar in a tank underneath the back cellar floor. Customers were supplied with gasoline from a pump which was operated in the back of the store above the cellar where the gasoline tank was. There were no gas jets in the cellar, and no artificial lighting of any kind. When near the door one could see without the use of a match, or candle, or any other light, but when 7 or 8 feet away it was necessary to have artificial light of some kind. In the front cellar, stove castings and brick, surplus stoves and ranges, were kept. Along the sides shelving was arranged upon which brick and castings were put. No trouble had been experienced with gasoline vapor on account of the furance which was in the cellar, or from matches or candles which were used to light persons about. There was no fire in the furnace at the time of the loss. Frequently half a dozen candles were around on the floor when work was to be done. The back cellar was used for the same purpose as the front cellar, except that stoves were not put in there; it was lighted only by a small window looking out into the alley. Matches and candles were used in the back cellar as in the front. When the workmen found what they were looking for, it was customary to drop these charred matches upon the floor, or put them on the stoves or castings.
The clerk who went into the cellar on the occasion testified in regard to the disaster as follows:
The plaintiff in error claimed on the trial that there was evidence of a fire in the back cellar preceding the explosion and causing it, and that the explosion was therefore but an incident in the progress of the fire, and the company was therefore liable on the policy. He made the following request to charge the jury:
'If the jury find from the evidence that on the 28th day of September, 1896, at or before the time the witness Oliver went into the cellar of the plaintiff's premises, as described by him, a fire originating in accidental or other causes was in progress in the back cellar of said premises, and that afterward and while such fire was in progress the gas or vapor generated by the evaporation of liquid gasoline came in contact with the flames of such fire and exploded and prostrated portions of the building in which the insured commodities were stored, then the damage done to such commodities by reason of such prostration was occasioned by fire within the meaning of the policy, and the plaintiff is entitled to recover in this action.'
The court refused the request, and the exception to such refusal brings up the first question argued by the plaintiff in error.
In the course of the charge it was stated as follows:
'The court has granted an instruction to this effect, that if there existed upon the premises a fire, and that the explosion, if there was an explosion, followed as an incident to that fire, then the loss to the plaintiff would be really occasioned by the fire, but if the explosion were not an incident to a precedent fire, but was the origin and the direct cause of the loss, then there was no destruction by fire, and the plaintiff is not entitled to recover anything from the defendant.'
It is not important to inquire whether there was in truth any evidence tending to prove the existence of a fire in the front cellar preceding the lighting of the match therein, because the submission of the question to the jury was all that the plaintiff could ask, and the verdict negatives its existence. But the court drew a distinction between the front and rear cellar, and refused the foregoing request by the plaintiff's counsel, for the reason given, as...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bilsky v. Sun Insurance Office, Limited
...Ins. Co. v. Rupard et al., 187 Ky. 671, 220 S.W. 538, l.c. 542; Trans-Atlantic Fire Ins. Co. v. Dorsey, 56 Md. 70; Mitchell v. Potomac Ins. Co., 183 U.S. 42, 46 L. Ed. 74; Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Greer, 61 Ark. 509, 33 S.W. 840; German-American Ins. Co. v. Hyman, 42 Colo. 156, 94 Pac. 27; Heuer......
-
Ceco Corp. v. Coleman
...50, 52, 165 F.2d 624, 626 (1948); Bowles v. Marsh, D.C.Mun.App., 82 A.2d 135, 139 (1951). See generally Mitchell v. Potomac Insurance Co., 183 U.S. 42, 22 S.Ct. 22, 46 L.Ed. 74 (1901). Hence, if, as Ceco claims, there was no evidence that Coleman's injury caused his leg to become unsightly ......
-
Bilsky v. Sun Ins. Office, Ltd., of London, England
... ... 1072 SARAH BILSKY AND PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, A CORPORATION, (PLAINTIFFS) ... Co. v. Dorsey, 56 Md. 70; ... Mitchell v. Potomac Ins. Co., 183 U.S. 42, 46 L.Ed ... ...
-
State ex rel. Continental Insurance Co. v. Reynolds
...Co., 133 Mo.App. 30; Cohn v. National Insurance Co., 96 Mo.App. 315; German-American Insurance Co. v. Hyman, 94 P. 27; Mitchell v. Potomac Insurance Co., 183 U.S. 42; German Fire Insurance Co. v. Roost, 45 N.E. Story v. The Sun Mutual Insurance Co., 91 N.Y. 103; St. John v. American Mutual ......
-
Sherlene Wong v. Stillwater Insurance Company
...define to be an explosion, but what the ordinary man would understand to be meant by that word." (Mitchell v. Potomac Insurance Co. (1901) 183 U.S. 42, 52 [*1321] [46 L.Ed. 74, 22 S. Ct. 22].) As a leading insurance commentary puts it, an "explosion" is "commonly defined as a sudden and rap......