The Minneapolis journal., 1906-08-04
'CROCKER HOTEL
WINS INSURANCE
JUDGE HOLT HANDS DOWN I'M
PoRTANT DECISION
Damage Caused by Fall Of fWall Left
Standing by the Peck -Boutell Fire
, Held to Be Primary Fire Loss and
! Companies Must Pay Proportional
Shares of Loss.

Judge Andrew Holt Of the district
companies in the suits growing out Of
building, 1880 Fifth street s., on
Dec. 90, 1904. The building was the
property Of Mrs. Alice A. Russell. The
loss was $6, ,019 and was covered by poll
cies held in the North River Insurance
company, the German Fire Insurance
company Of Pittsburg and the Farmers
gregating $4,000.
The companies refused to make good
the loss on the ground that the build
ing was damaged by the falling Of the
wall of the Peck building adjacent to it,
alleging that the fall was due to a high
wind and occurred seven days after the
fire In the Peck building.
j. ALI Conditions Kept.
The testimony Is that the wind was
strong on the night In question, but not
unusually severe for that season Of the
year. It Is found that the predominant
cause Of the damage and loss was the
fire in the Peck building on Dec. 49,;
that the plaintiff had kept all the eon-
ditions imposed in the policy, and had
made proper proof Of loss, and judg-
ment Is given to the plaintiff IL the
SuW OIL p4,oI O.U1 dkd1IhSb ctaCu u sAo
three companies.
Accompanying the decision is a mem
orandum in which Judge Holt fully sets
| forth his views. The rider in the policy
| which is headed lightning clause, y
and includes the following: meaning
thereby the commonly accepted use OF
the term lightning and in no case to in
clude loss or damage. by cyclone, tor
nado or windstorm," has no bearina
upon the case as no loss is claimed from
lightning, hence the exception from
windstorm does not apply.
Judge Holt's Views.
"The evidence does not show that
any part Of the walls. considered dan
gerous and damaged beyond question
both in the Peck building and thu
Boutell building fell, nor the. staginf
erected preparatory to taking sucf
damaged walls down." says Judge
Holt. ''The wall which caused the los'
was left in the condition It was whe1
it fell solely thru the operation Of th'
tivity on the wall SO that the fall shoulf
not be attributed to any act Of man
except such as was used in the attemp
to extinguish the fire. The windstorn
was not one which was so overpower1n|
that It could be termed an act Of God
50 as to relieve from contract obl1ga
tions. Such winds are apt to occur a
any season Of the year in this yy1e1nltyy
The wall also fell so soon after th
fire that there had been no opport rtunit,
of closely examining or ascertaining 1t
"A credible witness testifed that tn
wall was bullying out the day befor
1t fell and when no wind was blow
ing, and the fire was smoulaering 9
its base to within two days before !
fell. Under these conditions, it woul
! seem reasonable to hold that when
. and long walls without support, an
has weakened the same SO that by th
ordinary and natural causes operatin
thereon they fall SO soon after the fir
! that there was no time either. to secur
them or take them down, and In the ia
> damages an adjoining building insure
under a standard policy, the insurer Q
.. the latter building must pay such dan
ages.
G "In such a case the fire seems TO m
to be the prsdominant, m effsiept epta Geus psa
building had had that building insure
under policy similar in terms and til
fire had left this wall standing and
such condition that It could not be rea,
: lily determined whether it could be uti
! lied for rebuilding or should be tor
: down, and before such determinatic
Q could we'll be reached a windstor
,. like the one in question arose and IL
o wall fell, it would seem clear that Il
IT loss would have to be measured by ii
is damage after such fall.
s. "It will not do to hold that the 10
70 Is to be determined as Of the nome:
l. the fire ceases to burn. The proxima
Is consequences Of the same must be
esa ermnng th y ease pSS' tSe Same nnn se
is plies as governs in determining the 10
K to the Peck building.'