The San Francisco call., 1906-06-29
Foreign Reinsurance Companies Demand That Ordinary Companies
Damage Due Directly or Indirectly to the Recent Temblor
PHRASE PRONOUNCED ELASTIC ENOUGH INDUCE EVAsIONS
knowledge OF Fiat Comes Through Circular Sent by Old Corporations
German and English Concerns Hit by Local Disaster
DOCUMENT FORMULA THERNG HELD AT FRANKFORT
PHRASE PRONOUNCED ELASTIC EN
FORMULATED AT GATHE

n
Twenty large foreign reinsurance companies have come
10 the front demand OF the companies that direct
insurers that they shall pay any losses IN San Fran
cisco thar the direct indirect result OF
quake The phrase direct indirect 50 elastic and
comprehensive that under there margin for
companies that wish evade payments to IRE losers and
sui have plausible for delinquency in that re-
gard
The reinsurance companies that take this stand in
Germany St Petersburg Copenhagen. Paris Hamburg
Berlin Florence and other European cities knowledge
of this action has become known here through circular
addressed by the foreign reinsurance companies 10 every
German and English FIRE company that had
rlsk IN the San Francisco FIRE and also 10 all others
thst carry ire insurance with headquarters in either Ger
many England
COMPANIES THAT SIGNED.
A ist Of The signatures 10 this remarkable circular
fellows Tor the bene6t and information OF FIRE losers in
this city who have looked 10 reinsurance companies as
Al additional source OF security. The signatures are:
Badische Ruck und AIitversicherungs Geselschaft in
Mannheim
Erste Boehmische Ruckversicherungs- in Prag.
-Gesellschaft Europa in Berlin
la Fondiara Compagnia Italia di Assicurazioni Contro
Hanseausehe Feuer- Versieherungs Gesellschaft in
Hamburg
Hamburg Bremen Allgemene Ruckversieherungs-
GeseLschzft IN Hamburg
Koeinische Ruckversehernngs-Gesels in Koeln-
Minerva Retrocessons und Ruckversicherungs-Gese
schaft zu Koelu-
9Iunchener Rucversicherungs Geseschaft in Munchen
Akaeseiskabat Nordisk Gjenforsikrngs-seiskab in
KoPenhagen-
Nye Dznske sisrings-selskzb in Kopenhsgen
Ober Leimische Verscberungs-Ges in Mann
helm
Prudentiz Aotien-Geselschaft frr Ruck und Mitver-
sieherungen N Zurich.
Rbeinisch Westfalische Ruckversicherungs Actien-
CIesellschaftsin " GIzdbach-
VersicherungsC5eseIischsft ~Rossija IN St Peters
Seizerische in Eur
Scandinavia in Kopen-
sociee Auonyule de Reinsurance Contre rIncendie in
lerseherungs- Gesesetaft Hamburg in Hamburg.
VerscherungsG Geseschaft salamandra7 in St Peters
WISH TO EvADE PAYMENT
his circular IS the outcome OF meeting that
held Al Frankfort Germany That the purpose OF the
twenty companies mentioned Is TO prevent the payment
o any losses IN San Francisco thar be evaded they
hide behind earthquake clause policy Is made
clear BY the following sentences
We consequently expect that these companies whose
policy conditions exclude liability for the direct and in
direct consequences OF earthquake viii absolutely refuse
admit claims made against them; and that those
Pses whose policies contain the conditions of the So
called standard Pohey VIII only admit those losses for
'hch strict Interpretation of the condition in ques
ton. they prove 10 be undoubtedly liable.
The principle that holds force in the relation of the
direct insurer 70 the insured IS also valid In that OF the
Insurance treaties with the intention OF Loyalty fulfilling
our obligations far these the results of the
payment OF losses IS concerned. indennhcztion
which the direct insurer legally liable 1t
intention BY the conclusion OF reinsurance treaties
70 engage ourselves also 70 participation in losses for
which according the explanations made by US there
exists no legal obligation the direct insurer"
The arguments that contained IN the circular which
certain 20 become famous by reason OF the large
companies that represents and the
clear these companies will re-
fuse pay reinsurance money San Francisco where
damage BY earthquake ignored given extracts
ss follows
PAIL BEHIND EARTHQUAKE.
IT Is universally accepted rudimentzry principle
y losses caused either directly or indirectly bv
earthquake Only the light OF this principle and not
IN accordance with less forced INTERPRETATION
OF the policy should claim made for compensation for
such loss be dealt with
The argument that every loss irrespective Of how
policy does exclude II by express reference 10 given
origin only far II question OF eauSe
Of loss the intrinsic nature OF the against
which the insurance Is given
The conception OF the fre loss however against which
the insurer gives the normal of premium
only comprises normal causes OF loss and leaves bso-
Iutelv no room for a loss caused by earthquake
Legally therefore the question IS all whether
loss b earthquake excluded by the conditions OF the
policy or not but rather whether the undertaking OF liza
or not II the contract does include an agree
rreu then payment cannot be legally demanded OF the
insurer for losses caused directly or indirectly by earth
quake
THE QUESTION OF INTENT
II in given cases an appeal contrary TO expecta
tious be made a judicial decision the question
OF liability OF the insurer the first procedure would
srties when making the contract But who can doubt
that OF the the conclusions ~