Peterson v. Royal Ins. Co.

Decision Date14 October 1959
Docket NumberNo. 175,175
Citation110 S.E.2d 441,251 N.C. 61
PartiesW. W. PETERSON and wife, Peggy G. Peterson, v. ROYAL INSURANCE COMPANY.
CourtNorth Carolina Supreme Court

Lonnie B. Williams and O. K. Pridgen II, Wilmington, for plaintiff-appellant.

Poisson, Campbell & Marshall, Wilmington, for defendant-appellee.

RODMAN, Justice.

The policy, so far as pertinent to this controversy, provides: '* * * the coverage of this policy is extended to include direct loss by * * * explosion * * *'.

'Provisions Applicable Only to Explosion: Loss by explosion shall include direct loss resulting from the explosion of accumulated gases or unconsumed fuel within the firebox (or combustion chamber) of any fired vessel or within the flues or passages which conduct the gases of combustion therefrom. However, this Company shall not be liable for loss by explosion, rupture or bursting of: (a) steam boilers, steam pipes, steam turbines or steam engines; or (b) rotating parts of machinery caused by centrifugal force; if owned by, leased by or actually operated under the control of the insured.

'The following are not explosions within the intent or meaning of these provisions: (a) Concussion unless caused by explosion, (b) Electrical arcing, (c) Water hammer, (d) Rupture or bursting of water pipes.

'Any other explosion clause made a part of this policy is superseded by this Extended Coverage.'

'Inherent Explosion Clause: This policy shall cover direct loss to the property covered caused by explosion occurring in the described dwelling or appurtenant private structures or in any structure containing property covered hereunder from hazards inherent therein, but this Company shall not be liable for loss by explosion originating within steam boilers, steam pipes, steam turbines, steam engines, or rotating parts of machinery caused by centrifugal force. Concussion, unless caused by explosion; electrical arcing; water hammer; rupture or bursting of water pipes are not explosions within the intent or meaning of this clause.'

Plaintiff W. W. Peterson testified: 'I heard something that day. It sounded like an explosion. * * * Yes sir, it was a tremendous noise, and it shook the building we were in. Yes sir, I felt a concussion, a vibration from that noise. Yes sir, there was a compression. Our garage has a forty-foot span with two steel beam stringers trussed from one pilaster to the other. Our garage does not have any structure under the roof or over the roof. We looked up and those trusses were vibrating. * * * There were two doors that were not up at that time * * * and the vibration from that noise had those doors going in and out approximately three inches. Yes sir, the doors shook. * * * I felt the ground shock. I was working on a car inside the shop. I went outside the minute the shock was over. We looked to see if we could find any fire or smoke, because we knew something had blown up. * * * I did not see any airplanes in the sky. * * * I could not determine where this tremendous noise and force came from. * * * There was a tremendous noise and pressure and the earth trembled. * * *'

The incident about which he testified occurred between 11:00 o'clock and 12:00 o'clock. He went to lunch about 1:00 o'clock. He then observed: '* * * the porch had been moved over from the house over 3/8 inch at one end. The porch consists of a cement slab approximately three inches thick; eight feet wide and twelve feet in length. Yes sir, it was separated from the house. Then we seen some small particles of cement, or chips, and at that point we seen the places where they were busted open all over the house. The blocks were busted open and at the southwest corner every block had split, and the more we went around the house, the more we found wrong with it. * * * There are glass, frame windows in the house. I did not find any windows broken out. * * * We were living in it. We had a cabinet 36 inches high in the kitchen. No, we did not find any dishes or china broken; they were on the top shelf. They were not thrown to the floor. * * * No water pipes were broken that I know of. * * * I found no sign of damage to the electrical fixtures. We have an oil fired furnace; kerosene oil. * * * That was not damaged. The tank outside was not disturbed. It was still on its foundation. * * * My garage is approximately 200 feet from the nearest corner of my house; it is less than a city block. * * * Yes sir, it shocked the floor. Yes sir, I could feel the floor vibrate. * * * As far as I know, there was no explosion of anything in my house. I have a barn. There was nothing in it that could have exploded. I have a pump house. There was nothing in it that could have exploded. Yes sir, when I heard this noise, and felt this vibration in the garage, we run out into the open. * * * I have not determined what caused those vibrations or where they originated from. I felt that was not up to me to have to prove what done my damages.'

Norwood Sommersett testified: 'On that date I was under the hood of an automobile. The automobile was in the garage. I heard a blast with a pressure...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Pre-Cast Concrete Products, Inc. v. Home Insurance Co., 17588.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • 10 Noviembre 1969
    ...797 (8th Cir. 1929); Bolich v. Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company, 205 N.C. 43, 169 S.E. 826, 828; Peterson v. Royal Insurance Company, 251 N.C. 61, 110 S.E.2d 441, 443. There is a recent case, curiously not cited by either party to the case at bar, Aetna Casualty and Surety Comp......
  • Honeymead Products Co. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 39609
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • 28 Octubre 1966
    ...breaking forth of a confined substance as a result of an Internal force * * *.' (Italics supplied.) Likewise, in Peterson v. Royal Ins. Co., 251 N.C. 61, 64, 110 S.E.2d 441, 443, the court 'Internal pressure causing a sudden expansion resulting in bursting or disruption are essential elemen......
  • Jackson v. American Mutual Fire Insurance Company
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of North Carolina
    • 2 Octubre 1968
    ...considered in its entirety is insufficient to establish that the damage was caused by an explosion. In Peterson v. Royal Insurance Co., 251 N.C. 61, 110 S.E.2d 441 (1959) the Supreme Court of North Carolina, after holding that proof of damage from a concussion, without explanation as to the......

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