Connecticut western news., 1884-08-13
A QUESTION OF INSURANCE.
An Interesting Query Upon m Important
 Subject Answered.

From R. F., Fair6GuH, Minn--A
 question of insurance arises which l
 would like to see answered through the
 paper. A house that was built some IS
 months ago, and which had been
 finished inside by painting and papering,
 was partially destroyed by fire. The
 roof was burned of before the fire de-
 partment succeeded in arresting the
 flames. As a consequence, the rooms
 were flooded with water and the plaster
 was wet through and the paint damaged
 or ruined by the flames. Although the house was insured, the general agent of the company did not adjust the loss for some two weeks after the fire. During this time the walls and woodwork were still further wet by melted snow and rain. The question arises: Is the in- surance company responsible for dam age done by fire and water or only by fire?
 Ansuer.--We think that the question that our correspondent raises is prob ably one of fact, and is to be answered solely by the conditions of the policy which was written on the risk men, toned. By examination of that instru- ment it will probably be found that the liability in this case, as in others, de- bends upon the conditions in the policy. In general terms we believe it is the custom of insurance companies to guar antee loss from fire in the broad sense that 1t covers, also, damages that may be incidental to the process of putting out the fire. In the large cities the in- surance companies sometimes maintain what is called an Insurance Patrol. This consists of a corps of we'll trained men with all necessary appliances for pro- tecting goods that may be in building at the time of a fire, and which would be damaged by the water If not cared for. The insurance companies find it cheaper to take care of property in this way than to pay what they would otherwise be liable for under their poli- cies. If our correspondents question with reference to the insurance con- panies' liability for damage from water refers to the damage done by the rain and melted snow subsequent to the fire and during the period which elapsed between the time of the fire and the date of the adjustment, a point is raised that we are scarcely prepared to an- swer. The liability of company, in all probability, would depend largely upon circumstances. If the building during this interval was practically in the hands of the insurance company pending an adjustment of the loss, and on this account was out of the control of the owner, so that he was unable to protect his property, it would seem that, in equity at least, the insurance con- pany should make up the additional loss. What the law may be, or what custom may recognize in the district in which our correspondent is located, We cannot say. We suggest that it would be very difficult matter to determine what amount of loss was sustained by the damage done the building subse- quent to the fire on account of water, and what occurred at the time of the fire. Sometimes insurance companies consider it to their advantage to restore building to it's original condition rather than pay the amount of policy, ari hey frequently reserve the right to do this. If such clause existed in the policy in question, and if the company had finally decided to rebuild the build ing, it is very evident that any loss that was sustained subsequent to the fire and before the work of rebuilding was com menced would fall upon the insurance company. No one would ever think of claim being entered against the owner for 1t. This view of the case would seem to indicate that the insurance company, in equity, at least, is liable for the damages which result directly and indirectly from the fire. from the time that that fire occurs until a settlement has been made and the property re- stored to the owner. If any of our readers have had any experience in matters of this kind we shall be glad to have statements from them for publica- tion.