News and citizen. [volume] (Morrisville, Vt. ;) 1881-current, 1884-09-04
A QUESTION INSURANCE.
An Interesting Query Upon Important
Subject Answered.

From r. P, Fair6aul, Minr1--A
| question: of insurance arises which
would like to see answered through the
paper. A house that was built some is
months ago, and which had beer
finished inside by painting and papering,
was partially destroyed by fire. The
roof was burned off before the fire de.
partment succeeded in arresting the
flames. As 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. TIE question arises Is the in
surance company responsible for dam
age done by fire and water or only by
fire?
Ansuer.-We thixk 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-
pends 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 it 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 corps of well-trained men
with all necessary appliances for pro-
tecting goods that may be in building
at the time of fire, and which would
be DANCED by the water # 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 poll
cies. If our correspondents question
with reference to the insurance COM
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 a 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, 80 that he was unable to
protect his property, it would seem that,
in equity at least, the insurance COM
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
a building to its original condition
rather than pay the amount of policy,
and they 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
a claim being entered against the owner
for it. 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 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,