The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1900-11-09

% ,glnlrr 1T the mon forces the proximate cor
- The Circuit Court held that although the attack
r for the order yet the order was the cause an IN.
intervening cause and that therefore the insurer vas
' .rrh 90, that excepted i'm the pol;c,
% as. g Fed Cas-. No 1887. But the Supreme Cont
dt decision and held that the invasion or us,rnod
- ,. efficient and that the order was only IAN
., 4 necessary incident and consequence of the hostile
E or f.r owu-a military necessity caused bv the at
% m ur. ut 20 continuous chain of events brought into
Inv f.p u.ur,d military Power.-events so linked together
i.r. ono .uutuuou. whole But in Portsmouh ms Co
,oJ. SD Craft (NaD 613, referred in 10 Am. A. Emo
- Lave gud Ed 131, where the insured buildings were
I Ig tr. which spread from other buildings set ON fire
lsfH. rutcd States authorities under am apprehension
E d, the Confederate forces the court held that tho
u.-. liable that the threatened attack was not the cause
.l' SENSE. or it q cause only cause of the loss
Ias,r r of the government authority an independent
r.ng Efficient ln this there was no attack in
~ nor .rrb urgent necessity in the other And in
rr The iork HHt ms Co., so Pa. St 341 where the loss
% wa. that caused by fire occasoned by mobs and riot"
cr c insured buildings destroyed by the spread Of
from bridge fire by the Commander Of the United
y force. 10 prevent the advance of rebel army the court
a f insurer liable both because the force in question was
~y mob body of rioters and because the fire was oc-
cd pwymacy by the order of the military authorities,
a, cmotc, by the invading army.
Tins there seems be- difference of opinion as to whether
INVASION or u.upcd power, where loss occasioned thereby is
% or the order given by the opposing commander in con
~ such invasion usurped power, where loss occasion
@ orcr not excepted, is the proximate cause of the
r legal II the decisions Of the United States Circuit
md the Supreme Courts of Pennsylvania and Virginia
l followed the order Of the Board Of Health should he
brd bc proSmate and the insurers would not be
E the decision Of the Supreme Court of the United
IN point and IS followed, the plague is the proximate
nl the insurers liable. 1t.seems that these cases
nr.babe from that decided by the Supreme Court of
d States In that in these cases the insurance
ans fire. but in that the expected risk was invasion or
power while in this it is the order Of any civil author
Would the in that have arrived at diff
conclusion il the exception had been the order of any
authority and not Invasion usurped power!' The
o not merely what the proSimate is from alb
scientific point Of view what it might be in other
Of action. II Is largely question of the intention of the
determined by the language of the contract and it, sub
natter In that the court, in order carry the
c orcr to the usurped power laid considerable
lg Intention Of the parties IL said, among other things:
rs Of insurance. like other contracts receive
interpretation with the apparent object and
intent II the parties. This j. entirely consistent with the
bag antiquities should be construed most strongly against
,'r1ricr, and most favorably to the assured y
u involved Of necessity resistance by the constituted
's Of he government and the employment of its milf
me- Destruction Of property by fire quite likely to
d by resistance to the usurpng military power by the
"'on Of that power itself This have been foreseen
afiorr when the insurance effected IL is difficult
% believe that the parties intended 10 conine the slip
"mpou within the limits 10 which the assured would
'u'neit
'nbot be- said that not anticipated which military
wy recognized. Aud the insurers and the assured must
'o Tor such action by the Federal forces probable
1ae consequence Of overpowering attack upon the
mmvNlug rcbcllious force. Having excepted from the
'asen responsibility for such attack they excepted
go.bity for the consequences reasonably to be an
rd from t."
o' assuming that go back for the cause at least
'N' ORDER shown by all the cited above, could it
o'F o'otrudcd that the parties did not intend that loss
'''y or indirectly by order of any civil authority
'" cs', Ike the present; When loss is caused by
'0'l authority, the officer official body, unless IT
0'"nd ho scope Of its authority, that it cannot be re
"'ng civil authority at all, necessarily acts IN
"'' ' some reason. Ii may destroy property
'' 'rrrod Of an epidemic prevent an invasion OF
"'complish other purposes. Whether, if the civil
''I onIor The burning of property to prevent the
''' '1" case would come within the exception, we
" W 1ch Dy.e the fire. tie spread Of which Is sought
'''' is '1c very risk insured against. In this ease,