The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1900-08-16
SIDE
WINS ONE
Two Insurance Cases
Decided.
|G0 TO SUPREME COURT
SilIiman Gives Ruling Opposed to
Humphreys Other News of
the Courts.

All OF TUESDAY ana yesterday were
occupied by Circuit Judge Silliman in
hearing the two Chinatown insurance
cases which had been selected by the
counsel for the insurance companies
and insured as test cases.
These two cases involved the loss Of
goods In Chinatown by the great fire of
January goth last. which originated in
a fire set by order of the Board of
Health 10 destroy certain buildings
which had been condemned by the
Board as infected with plague.
Among the other property destroyed
was the stock of goods owned by zee
wo Chan & Co. in a store situated on
Maunakea near the corner of King
J Street.
The goods. which the plaintiff valued
at $4,000. were insured in several diff
ferent companies; one policy was for
5000 in the MagdebHrg Insurance
Company. Of which Schaefer & Com
pany are agents. The other policy was
In the Transatlantic Company, of
which Hackfeld & Company sare
agents
The Magdeburg policy is on what is
! known as the standard form" This
form contains a provision that the
Company Twill not be responsible for
any loss or damage by fire occasioned
by the invasion Of a foreign enemy, in
I surrectiOn, civil connection, riot, or
4 military or usurped power"
The insurance companies having poll
} cies under this form claim that the
} conditions existing in Honolulu at the
\ time the loss occurred constituted a
} civil commotion," in that they were OF
\ an extraordinary and abnormal char
\ acter. which had not been foreseen OF
\ contemplated by the Companies at the
\ time OF making the insurance con-
tract that IL was more dangerous to
' the companies in fact than would have
been a riot or insurrection, in that the
Government itself was creating the
fires. and that ordinary protection from
\ fires TO wit: the Fire Department and
< the owners of the property, was no
only lacking. but the Fire Department
Itself was the agency through which
the destruction by fire was carried out
The insured claimed that the words
! civil commotion" did not cover tn,
: conditions existing here at the time o
the fire. but necessarily involved som
form Of riotous demonstration or per
sonal violence.
Judge Siliman took the latter viey
and decided that the exemption claus
did not relieve the insurance compan
from liability, in that there was, &C
cording TO his view, no civil commotio
\ in Honolulu at the time of the loss.
= The other or standard form {
policy contained an exemption fror
liability on the part Of the Company {
the effect that IL the fire was cause
directly or indirectly by act of III
civil authorities. the Company shout
not be liable.
The companies using this form claii
that this fire was caused by act of
civil authority, TO wit: the Board
Health, and therefore they are n
liable.
&c The. insured claim. on the other han
y that the exemption from liability e
:. lists only when the civil authority eau
- ing the fire possessed lawful authori
20 cause the fire; that the Board
Health had no such authority. al
therefore IL was the act not of ci'
authority but an unlawful act of u
authorized individuals.
IL was argued on behalf of the /
~ surance Company that the Court shou
-. not go behind the record and exami
for the eradication of the plague
burn buildings. or whether the Boa
OF Health in fact had authority
burn: that for the purposes of this ca
IL was sufficient If a civil authority {
dered the fire.
n The Court held that the fire in qu'
III ton was caused by civil authority,
nj. wit: the Board of Health: that
Court would not go into the question
whether the Board Of Health h
authority TO order the fire or not; Il
the loss of the goods in question,
though they were in a separate bui
ing from that in which the original
AS was set. was nevertheless caused
.vs rectly by the Board Of Health fire.
The Court therefore held that
oys loss came within the exemption clal
and in the policy, and the Company v
ra- not liable for the loss.
Both parties have appealed to
Supreme Court. and the question '
go there for determination at the n
term.
. Judge Sfliman's decision was rend
m ed orally A written decision is to
Hin filed hereafter in both cases.