The San Francisco call., 1906-09-15

Because there was no earthquake
clause in the policies of the Transit
lantic Fire Insurance Company, and be-
cause the. defendants had failed 10
show that any part of the insured
buildings had fallen before the fire
reached them on April 1S 10 and 20
United States District Judge Whitson
Instructed the jury yesterday to find
for plaintiff for the full amount of the
policies in the suit of the Levi Strauss
Realty Company against the insurance
corporation named, together with in
terest from the date of the suit. This
amount was s10,05S.
Hopkins a paper containing the YER
dict. Mr.. Hopkins passed it to Clerk
Mailing. After having signed it, the
clerk read it aloud, and the first of the
welching insurance companies was
placed on record.
Henry Ach. attorney for the plaintiff,
requested that the remaining suits
against the Transatlantic should be
tried at early date. Under the laws
OF Germany. he said, 1t would be neces-
sGry to bring suit in all these cases
in Germany before the expiration of a.
year. dating from the cause of action.
Henry Eickhoff, counsel for the com
parry. said that he desired some little
time in which to obtain evidence to
shcw that the buildings insured were
damaged and weakened before the fire
reached them. 1t was finally agreed
that the remainder of the cases should
be taken I'D before September 20.
NOTHING To ATTACH.
Before beginning the present action
126 attachments against property sup
posed to belong to the Transatlantic
Fire Insurance Company were placed
in the hands of United States Marshal
Elliott for service. but the Marshal was
unable to find any property worth the
cost of attaching.
The defense raised by Attorney Eicll-
hoff was based upon the exceptions ia
the policy relating to the acts of mobs
to property destroyed by municipal au-
thorities or by usurpers of such. or by
the military power. lie contended par
ticularly that the confiagration follow
ing the earthquake of last April was
from an irresistible superhuman
cause" against which ordinary human
foresight could not prevail. and from
conditions not contemplated by insurer
or insured at the time of the making
OF the policy
Judge Whitson, before instructing
the jury. remarked that as to the
earthquake being the proximate cause
OF the injury, he did mot think there
was enough evidence to go before the
jury. The exceptions which the policy
contains did not include losses by that
means.
WORDS OF THE COURT.
Il know that insurance companies
Insist on the strict letter of their con-
tract" pursued the court, "and ! think
tho plaintiff is entitled to invoke that
Tlle that the exceptions inserted in
the policy constitute ali the exceptions
on which the defendant could rely.
This insura ance company undertook to
guarantee the payment for loss by fire
from any cause. unless for a cause ex-
pressly excepted in the contract. The
courts have universally applied this
rule which insurance companies usually
irsist upon when they contest loss.
In making this contract Insurance COM
panies generally see fit to put in an
exception in relation to ar act CT
God II may be that this company, in
seeking business, was willing to offer
as an inducement the proposition that
is would pay a loss in case c; fire by
any other means than those specially
exec pied. Taking this view of the case,
l don't think there is anything to so
to the jury. l find under the testi-
mcny that there is not anything from
which the jury could find that the fire
was caused by any cause embraced
within the exceptions. The testimony
has wholly failed to Sus.ain the de-
fense. There is nothing here for the
jury TO try"