The San Francisco call., 1907-01-25
EARTHQUAKE CLAIM
IGNORED BY JURY,
BERGIN WINS
Verdict Declares That the
Fire Insurance Company
Must Meet Loss Shown
VICTORY BENEFITS
MANY LOCAL OWNERS

That the ire which destroyed
Thomas 4. BerRin's building at 2I1
California street on April is was not
caused by the earthquake was the ver-
dict Of jury yesterday in the United
States Circuit Court. The verdict
awarded BerEfn s677s, which includes
interest upon s65OO, the amount for
which the building was insured with
the defendant. the Commercial Union
Assurance Company, Limited, of Lon
don.
The earthquake clause in the policy
made the company liable for all loss
or damage by FIRE. except fire caused
by earthquake, II was contended by
Thomas C. Van Ness for the defense
that the fre in question originated in
the Sachs building at 210 Sansome
street and that the fire there was
caused by electric light and heat wires
having been broken and crossed by
the earthquake.
The sury was out About twenty min
utes. The verdict is an important one.
as IL affects similar suits against
earthquake clause companies aggre-
eating several million dollars. AS the
frst exposition Of the law of such
cases. the most important part OF the
charge Of United States District Judge
Edward Whitson is given here;
II is not necessary TO assume that
the FIRE which destroyed the plaintin $
building should nave originated IL
that building. for, il a FIRE was started
by the earthquake I'm any other build
ing and that particular IRE was COM
municated from the building Where II
started 20 plaintiffs building, or COM
municated TO plaintiffs building from
that FIRE through several buildings OF
any number OF buildings. and the plain
tiff's building was thereby burned, the
defendant is within the exception, be-
cause that would be an earthquake
caused fire. that is FIRE started by
an eartho
Logically. and this is the rule OF
law. the burden is upon the defendant
10 establish by evidence IN the case
that the FIRE which destroyed the plain
tins building was caused by an earuh-
quake. and this II must DO by pre-
ponderance. In reaching a conclusion
whether IL has done so. you are TO con-
slider all the evidence and ascertain
III you can. what fire destroyed plain
tiffs building. and what the origin Of
that fire was.
You are not TO guess at it. nor enter
into the realm of speculation, for the
burden is upon the defendant to bring
itself by proof. within the exception
namely, within an earthduak e-causeo
FIRE. But in consideration Of the case
YOU may make reasonable inferences
from facts which are established to
your satisfaction. and II you can say
from the facts which are established
10 your satisfaction by a prepOnder-
ance Of the evidence and those con-
clusions which necessarily or reason
= ~ follow from those established
facts. that the fire which destroyed
plaintiffs building was caused by an
earthquake. and by this I mean any
earthoua fire established BY
the evidence. III il does establish any
fire TO your satisfaction. .then your YER
dict should be for the defendant
To make IN clear In this regard the
law does not require demonstration
that is such a degree Of proof as, eX-
Cludlng posi- bility OF error. produces
absolute certainty. but moral certainty
is required. or that degree OF proof
which produces conviction in an un.
prhfudiced mind.
Any finding you make or conclusion
YOU reach as 10 the origin Of the fire
must be founded on evidence in the
case snd not upon the mere assumption
that because the FIRE started about
the time or soon after the earthquake
it was. therefore. caused by the earth
Qua ke.