Zamboni v. Implement Dealers' Mut. Fire Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 16 March 1928
• Docket Number: No. 26502.,26502.
• Parties: ZAMBONI et al. v. IMPLEMENT DEALERS' MUT. FIRE INS. CO.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

174 Minn. 122
218 N.W. 457

ZAMBONI et al.
v.
IMPLEMENT DEALERS' MUT. FIRE INS. CO.

No. 26502.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

March 16, 1928.

Appeal from District Court, Steele County; Norman E. Peterson, Judge.

Action by E. C. Zamboni and others against the Implement Dealers' Mutual Fire Insurance Company. From a judgment for plaintiffs for less than the amount of a verdict, they appeal. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

The evidence is conclusive that the explosion in a gasoline filling station was caused by an innocent or friendly flame or fire, and was not an incident of a precedent hostile fire; hence the loss caused by the explosion was not recoverable under the fire insurance policy sued on, which excepts loss or damage caused by explosions of any kind, unless fire ensues, and then covers the loss or damage caused by fire only.

[218 N.W. 457]

Sawyer, Gausewitz & Lord, of Owatonna, and Brown, Somsen & Sawyer, of Winona, for appellants.

Oscar Hallam, of St. Paul, and Charles G. Wright, of Duluth, for respondent.

HOLT, J.

Plaintiffs appeal from a judgment entered in their favor for $350 upon defendant's motion, after a verdict for $587.50. Plaintiffs moved for a new trial because of the inadequacy of the verdict. The motion was denied, while defendant's motion for judgment non obstante was granted.

The action is upon a policy issued by defendant, insuring plaintiffs against loss or damage by fire of a filling station in Owatonna, but ‘not to include loss or damage caused by explosions of any kind and unless fire ensues, and then to include that caused by fire only.’ It is conceded that $350 covers the loss and damage caused by fire only. There was also an explosion which bulged out the brick walls of the station and necessitated a rebuilding of the same, at least in part. The extent of the loss or damage caused by the explosion alone is in dispute. If the evidence warranted a recovery for the explosion, the verdict rendered was inadequate. The controversy between the parties appears to be whether the explosion was caused by a hostile or by a friendly fire, as those terms are understood in the insurance law; or, in other words, if the explosion followed as an incident of a hostile or involuntary fire, the defendant concedes it was not entitled to judgment non obstante. So that the question on this appeal reduces itself to this: Was the evidence so conclusive that the explosion resulted from an innocent or friendly fire as to preclude a jury from finding otherwise...