Transatlantic Fire Ins. Co. of Hamburg, Germany v. Dorsey
| Decision Date | 17 March 1881 |
| Citation | 56 Md. 70 |
| Parties | THE TRANSATLANTIC FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF HAMBURG, GERMANY v. MICHAEL T. DORSEY. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Baltimore City.
The case is stated in the opinion of the Court.
Exception.--At the trial the plaintiff offered the two following prayers:
1. If the jury shall find that the policy given in evidence was issued by the defendant to the plaintiff, for the consideration therein expressed, and that on June 28th, 1879 the commodities of the plaintiff therein mentioned, upon the premises described in the said policy, were destroyed or injured in the manner testified to by the witnesses; and if they shall find that such destruction or injury was directly caused by, or the result of a fire, then the plaintiff is entitled to recover.
2. If the jury shall find the facts in the plaintiff's first prayer enumerated, and shall further find that there was another policy for a like amount, upon the same goods issued to the plaintiff by another insurance company, then the measure of damages to be awarded to the plaintiff, must be the one-half of the loss they shall find him to have suffered with a further allowance, in their discretion, of interest from the date of the demand and refusal to pay, if they shall find such demand and refusal, not exceeding for the whole amount, the sum of one thousand dollars.
And the defendant offered the following thirteen prayers:
1. If the jury find that the plaintiff was the owner of the premises mentioned in evidence, and that about the afternoon of June, 28th, 1879, a sudden and severe tornado, cyclone or gust of wind and storm arose and struck the said premises and in part injured or demolished the same, and that such injury or demolition was solely caused by said tornado or gust of wind and storm, and that at the time thereof, there was sulphuric acid in the acid chamber of said premises, and that by reason of such partial injury or demolition caused as aforesaid, said sulphuric acid escaped from said chamber, and ran into the street and was lost, and that said acid so escaping and running into the street, is the same acid for the loss of which the plaintiff seeks to recover in this cause, then the plaintiff is not entitled to recover in this cause.
2. If the jury find from the evidence, that there was an acid chamber on the plaintiff's premises, containing weak sulphuric acid, and that a large part of said acid escaped from said acid chamber, and flowed into the street and was lost, and that the escape and loss of said acid, resulted from the fall or collapse of said chamber; provided, the jury find such a fall or collapse was caused by a combustion of sublimed sulphur in the north part of said premises, causing therein a vacuum and a collapse of said acid chamber, then the plaintiff is not entitled to recover such loss or damage in this cause, even if the jury believe that such fall or collapse was caused by atmospheric disturbances, thereby leading or producing such fall or collapse, which atmospheric disturbances the jury may find, resulted from combustion.
3. If the jury find that the plaintiff owned the sulphuric acid chamber, mentioned in evidence, and that the same was partially or wholly filled, either with sulphuric acid or with gases and steam, necessary for the manufacture of said acid, and shall further find that said acid chamber collapsed or fell, by the rushing out of the gases therein, and that the outrush of said gases was caused by an atmospheric disturbance outside of, and north of said chamber, and shall further find, that by said fall or collapse, the sulphuric acid ran out of said chamber into the street and was lost then the plaintiff cannot recover for such loss, even if the jury shall find that such atmospheric disturbance was caused by a combustion or explosion outside of said acid chamber of sublimed sulphur, as stated by the witnesses in the case.
4. If the jury find from the evidence, that an explosion or ignition of explosive matter, not caused by a preceding fire took place on plaintiff's premises, on June 28th, 1879, and no fire ensued therefrom, then the plaintiff is not entitled to recover.
5. That the plaintiff cannot recover in this cause, if there was no actual ignition or action of fire upon the sulphuric acid, whose loss is sought to be recovered in this cause.
6. If the jury find from the evidence, that an explosion or ignition of explosive matter, not caused by a preceding fire, took place on the plaintiff's premises, on the 28th day of June, 1879, or thereabout, and that the loss or damage to the sulphuric acid sought to be recovered in this cause, did not result from, and was not caused by fire happening after such explosion or ignition of explosive matter, then the plaintiff is not entitled to recover.
7. If the jury find, that an explosion or a mere ignition of explosive matter, not caused by a preceding fire, took place on the plaintiff's premises, on the 28th day of June, 1879, and that the loss and damage to the weak sulphuric acid, to recover which this suit is brought, was caused solely by said explosion or ignition of explosive matter, then the plaintiff is not entitled to recover.
8. If the jury find, that an explosion, or a mere ignition of explosive matter, not caused by a preceding fire, took place on the plaintiff's premises, on June 28th, 1879, and shall further find that such explosion or ignition of explosive matter was caused or took place from the fire or flames being thrown out of the sulphur burners or the furnace of the boiler, and coming in contact with minute particles of explosive matter--sulphur floating in the air, then such fire or flame so producing such explosion or ignition was not such as was contemplated by the parties to this cause, under the policy offered in evidence as one of the perils insured against, and the plaintiff cannot recover.
9. If the jury find from the evidence, that an explosion or ignition of explosive matter, not caused by a preceding fire, took place on the 28th day of June, 1879, and that loss and damage resulted to him by reason of such explosion or such ignition of explosive matter, then the plaintiff cannot recover in this cause for any such loss or damage.
10. If the jury find from the evidence in the cause, that the loss or damage sought to be recovered in this cause, resulted from the sulphuric acid escaping from the acid chamber, and flowing into the street, after said chamber had been injured, thrown down, either by an explosion or ignition of explosive matter, and by such injury causing said escape of acid, provided they find all these facts, then the plaintiff cannot recover.
11. If the jury shall find from the evidence in the cause, the plaintiff owned the sulphuric acid chamber spoken of in evidence, and that he owned sulphuric acid contained therein, and that said building fell, and shall further find, that said fall was not the result of fire, but resulted from a tornado or gust of wind, then the plaintiff cannot recover.
12. If the jury shall find from the evidence in the case, that the plaintiff owned the acid chamber mentioned in evidence, and had sulphuric acid therein, and that said building fell, and that said fall was the result solely of atmospheric disturbances, and that said disturbances resulted from a combustion on said premises, and not of fire directly, then the plaintiff cannot recover.
13. If the jury find from the evidence the following facts: That on June 28th, 1879, the plaintiff was the owner of the premises on Eastern avenue and Clinton street, mentioned in evidence and that said premises, in part, consisted of an acid chamber, then having sulphuric acid in it, and also of a brick sulphur burner, in three compartments, a closed brick sulphur stack, and that the burned sulphur and nitre of soda passed through said stack, into said acid chamber, as stated in evidence, and further, in part, consisted of an upright tubular boiler, with smoke-drum and stack, as stated in evidence, and, at said time there was fire in the furnace, under said boiler, and also burning sulphur in two of said sulphur compartments; and shall further find that there were minute particles of sulphur, in the air of said premises, and that, by some cause, the fire or flame, from the said boiler or furnaces, or from both, shot out in the air of said premises, and caused a fire...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bilsky v. Sun Ins. Office, Ltd., of London, England
...et al., 22 Ohio St. 340, l. c. 348; New Hampshire Fire 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 74; Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Greer, 61 Ark. 509, 33 S.W. 840; German-American I......
- Bethany Boardwalk Grp. LLC v. Everest Sec. Ins. Co.
-
Bethany Boardwalk Grp. LLC v. Everest Sec. Ins. Co.
...Supp. 2d 530, 538 (D. Md. 2013) (citing McEvoy v. Sec. Fire Ins. Co. of Balt., 110 Md. 275, 73 A. 157 (1909); Transatlantic Fire Ins. Co. of Hamburg v. Dorsey, 56 Md. 70 (1881)). In 1881, the Maryland Court of Appeals ruled that a clause that excepted from coverage "explosions of any kind, ......
-
Selective Way Ins. Co. v. Nat'l Fire Ins. Co. of Hartford
...under an ensuing loss clause is well recognized in Maryland case law. In Transatlantic Fire Ins. Co. of Hamburg, Germany v. Dorsey, 56 Md. 70, 1881 WL 7370 (1881), the Maryland Court of Appeals distinguished between damage caused by explosion and damage caused by fire resulting from the exp......