The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1907-06-07
LAW
IN NOVEL LIGHT
FAR REACHING RULING BY
JUDGE HUNT IN AN lNSUR-
ANCE DECISION

SAN FRANCISCO, May 23.-In
far-reaching decision Judge Hunt yes
terday established a construction OF
the law on fire insurance, which will |
doubtless affect numerous policy-hold-
ers. Judge Hunt contends that the
damage done to a house by dynamlt-
ing in the vicinity in order to arrest
the progress of the flames is damage
due to fire.
The case was that of Florin h.
Brandenstein against the Royal Tx
cnange Insurance Company and the
Hartford Insurance Company. Bran
densteins house, on Franklin street,
between Sacramento and California,
was damaged by the conclusion caused
by the dynamiting OF the Boardman
and Hotaling houses, across the street,
at the time of the great fire of april,
1906. The Brandenstein house was
valued at S21, 900; 1t was insured in
the two companies named for $4,000,
and the repairs upon it necessitated
by the dynamiting of the neighboring
houses cost $25S5. Suit was brought
against the insurance companies for
the recovery of the last-named sum.
The defendant companies took re-
fuge under the clause Oh their poll
cles, which provided that they should
not be liable for losses due to invasion
or explosion, unless fire ensued. They
pointed out that the Brandenstein
mouse was not touched by fire. Here
is where Judge Hunt differs with
them. He says:
1t is well-settled principle of law
that loss by fire does not necessarl-
ly mean loss from combustion. or
actual ignl!tion, of the premises in
sured against fire. If the injuries were
occasioned by heat or by smoke. or
through water or chemicals used In
an attempt to save the property, or If
building is blown up, in a bona tide
effort to extinguish the progress OF
the fire, the company is liable"
Much weight was attached during
the trial to the testimony of Fire Chief
Shaughnessy, who testified that had 1t
not been for the dynamiting of the
Boardman, hotaling and other houses
in that vicinity, the Brandenstein
house and probably the whole Western
Addition would have been burned.
IF defendants construction of the
terms of the policy of insurance is cor
rect continued Judge Hunt, lit fol-
lows that the owner of a house in
sured under the terms of a like policy
would, in the event of an anticipated
or threatened destruction of the in
sured property by an approaching con.
migration, find it to his best interest
either to remain supine or else resist
to the uttermost any attempted de-
structton thereof by explosives, even
II such destruction would save a city
IRON flames. In such case it would
be to his best interests to allow his
property to be destroyed by fire. and
thus enable him to recover his insur-
ance, Where, under such conditions,
an explosive is used rather as a means
OF salvation than a means of destruc-
ton of property, the injury sustained
is loss from fire within the mean
ing of the policy, for fire was the prox-
innate cause for such destruction, and
only anticipated it. Whether such ex-
plosives are directly or indirectly the
cause of the injury sustained; whether
the damage suffered is the result of
explosives fired in the plaintiffs Duild-
ing, or is the result o. explosives used
in building adjacent, is, in my view,
immaterial. In either event the loss
sustained resulted from the peril Of
fire"