Roe v. Columbus Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 31 October 1852
• Citation: 17 Mo. 301
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court
• Parties: ROE & KERCHEVAL, Appellants, v. THE COLUMBUS INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent.^a1

17 Mo. 301

ROE & KERCHEVAL, Appellants,

v.THE COLUMBUS INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent.^a1

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1852.

1. A policy of insurance contained this clause: “ Provided, that the insurers shall not be liable for any partial loss, except in case of general average, unless said loss amounts to ten per cent. on the agreed value in this policy, exclusive of all expenses of ascertaining and proving the same; nor for damage or loss arising from or caused by the said steamboat being unduly laden; nor for any damage or loss arising from the bursting of boilers, collapsing of flues, or breaking of engines, unless from unavoidable external cause, or from any consequences resulting therefrom.” Held, the exemption from liability for loss caused by the bursting of boilers, &c., extends to cases of total as well as of partial loss.

2. Where the boiler of a boat burst and tore away the stanchion supporting the upper deck, so that it fell down into the furnace and took fire, and the fire could not be checked, so that the boat had to be scuttled, it was held, that the bursting of the boiler was the immediate and proximate cause of the loss, and that it was within the exemption in the policy.

3. Quære, As to the true construction of the words, “or from any consequences resulting therefrom?”

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court.

This was an action upon a policy of insurance, upon an agreed statement of facts. The policy, after enumerating the perils insured against, among which is that of fire, contained the following clause: “ Provided, that the insurers shall not be liable for any partial loss, except in cases of general average, unless said loss amounts to ten per cent. on the agreed value in this policy, exclusive of all expenses of ascertaining and proving the same; nor for damage or loss arising from or caused by the said steamboat being unduly laden, during the continuance of this policy; nor for any damage or loss arising from the bursting of boilers, collapsing of flues, or breaking of engines, unless from unavoidable external cause, or from any consequences resulting therefrom.”

It was admitted that all the conditions of the policy had been complied with, so that the only question was, whether the loss was covered by the policy. The circumstances of the loss, as stated in the agreed case, are sufficiently developed in the opinion of the court, for an understanding of the points raised and decided.

Josiah Spalding, for appellants. Fire, in this case, was the proximate cause of the loss, and this was one of the perils insured against. 1 Phill. on Insurance (2 ed.), 690. Ib. 694. 12 East, 648. Green v. Elmslie, 3 Peake's N. P. 212. 11 Johns. Rep. 14. 11 Pet. Rep. 213. But even if the explosion is to be considered the efficient cause of the loss, the insurers are liable. 1. Because the exemption in the policy from liability for loss caused by the bursting of boilers is confined to partial losses. 9 Mo. Rep. 411. The clause in this policy is similar to the one in the policy in that case. 2. The true meaning of the proviso in question is, that the insurers are not liable for damage arising from bursting of boilers, unless such bursting is occasioned by external violence, or by consequences of such external violence. It does not exempt the insurers from the consequences of the bursting of boilers and breaking of engines. As the meaning is ambiguous, and the clause may be construed both ways, it is to be taken most strongly against the insurers. 11 Mo. Rep. 278. Hughes on Ins. 144-5. Park on Ins. 30. Smith's Mercantile Law, 412. 1 Duer on Ins. 161. 1 Burr. Rep. 341-8. 1 Sumner's Rep. 440.

Crockett and Kasson, for same.

Hamilton R. Gamble, for respondent. This case is clearly distinguishable from that of Glasgow v. Citizens' Insurance Company, so that that case is no authority in this. This policy clearly exempts the underwriters from liability for the loss of the vessel, as it was a consequence of the bursting of the boiler. The stipulation in this policy is designed to go beyond and render inapplicable the law that looks to the proximate cause, as the one that determines the liability of the insurer. In its terms, it exonerates the insurer from liability for loss or damage “arising” from the bursting of boilers. This language requires us to look beyond the last agent in producing the loss, and ascertain whether it arose from the bursting of the boiler. But not content with this language, the insurer, intending to render the matter plain to any ordinary comprehension, has stipulated that he will not be responsible for “any of the consequences resulting” from the bursting of boilers. The interpretation sought to be given to these words by the appellants is forced, unnatural and absurd. The obvious meaning of the clause is, that the insurer is not to be held liable for any loss or damage arising directly from, or which is the consequence of the...