The San Francisco call., 1907-02-27
QUAKE CLAUSES HELD
INVALID BY SEAWELL
Insurance Companies May
Not Profit by Them,
Says Judge

Judge SeaweiI held yesterday that
the insurance companies cannot hide
behind their earthquake clause. The
ruling was made in the case of Baker
& Hamilton against the Williams
burgh City Company, but affects sew
eral other corporations which have
sought to evade liability on the ground
that "the earthquake caused the fire. -
Tie clause in the policy under which
the Williamsburgh company claimed
exemption follows:
This company shall not be liable for
loss caused directly or indirectly by
invasion, insurrection, riot, civil war or
commotion, or military or usurped
power or by order of any civil au-
thority, or for loss or damage oc-
casioned by or through any volcano,
earthquake or hurricane, or other erup-
tion, convulsion or disturbance.
Judge Seawell says:
It is a well-sett1ed rule and one not
questioned by defendants counsel that
the language used in policy of insur-
ance, and particularly all antiquities
of expression and stipulations limit
ing the liability of the insurer, are to
be construed most strongly against the
latter and most favorably to the in
Sured.
Proceeding, the Judge says:
1t will be observed that by the terms
of the policy the defendant is not
liable for loss caused directly or indi-
rectly by certain enumerated peri1S, but
as to earthquake the exemption from
liability is for loss occasioned by or
through earthquake.
Judge Seawell thus at one stroke
sweeps aside the quibble over the
meaning of the clause and holds that
the directly or indirectly" does not
refer to earthquake"
Taking up the relation between the
earthquake and the fire, Judge Seawell
says:
I am, therefore, of opinion that, as
suming the answer to be true, the
original fires were eccasioned by earth
quake.
The ruling taAes the view that the
fires must be considered separately and
while the original conf1agrations may
have been caused by the earthquake,
other fires are less closely related to
the shake. On this point Judge Seawell
says:
In my opinion, it would be not only
sound doctrine to hold that an ex-
plosion taking place at distance of
miles from the insured property could,
under any circumstances, be held to be
the proximate cause of it's destruction
by fire. According to the allega-
tions of the answer, the earthquake
spent it's force as soon as the electric
wires were broken and did not there
after continue to operate or spread the
fire. . The primary fires may have
been due to unskillful or defective wir-
ing or to the improper construction OF
the buildings in which they were in
stalled, or both. 1t was known to the
parties when they entered into the con-
tract that the defendant was to be
liable for a loss of which fire and not
earthquake was the proximate cause
1t is unreasonable to hold that, in ac-
cepting the policy, plaintiff should
have understood that he assumed the
consequences of the negligence of other
persons, over whom he had no control
at points far distant from the insured
property: or that, in case of loss il
would be incumbent upon him to in
vestigate the circumstances of all the
other fires which occurred at the same
time
Baker & Hamilton were repre-
sented by Attorney L. A. Redman.