Vernon County censor. [volume] (Viroqua, Wis.) 1865-1955, 1908-11-18
MUST NOT
Be QUESTIONABLE
ATTORNEY GENERAL GILBERT
HOLDS THAT CONTRACT
SHOULD BE SPECIFIC.
QUESTION OF LIABILITY FOR
DAMAGE TO GOODS IN
COLD STORAGE.
Madison. Nov. II

'NNeNNis undEA the SLduudIO QFe
insurance policy of the state Of Wis
consin, under which fire insurance
companies are permitted to insure
against direct loss by fire, it would be
possible for them to assume. liability
Tor consequential damage as in the
case OF cold storage plant wherein
the apparatus or machinery might be
destroyed by fire and as a result
thereof, the usual temperature de
creased so as TO cause damage to
merchandise and stock in other parts
OF the storage warehouse, not other
wise affected by the fire, is a question
that has arisen in the office of Insur-
ance Commissioner Beedle, the spe-
cific policy clause under considerar
ton reading as follows:
Notice is hereby given, and it is
understood and agreed, that the in
surance under this policy does not
extend IN its application to cover, and
this company shall not be liable for
any indirect or consequential loss or
damage, including loss or damage
caused by change of temperature re-
sulting from, occasioned or caused by
fire of the refrigerating or cooling
apparatus, connections or supply
pipes, nor by the interruption OF the
refrigerating or cooling process from
any cause"
Attorney General Gilbert in reply
to the commi ,ssioner's office submits
the rule that ito constitute a direct
loss or damage by fire within the
usual terms of the fire policy, there
must be a lie in the proper sense of
that term from which the loss or dam
age results. The frequent contro-
vc@sy as to whether or not a given
loss is loss caused by fire usually
depends, however, on the question Of
whether or not a fire is the proxi-
mate cause of such loss and it may
be safely stated that the policy will
cover only the direct and immediate.
and net he remote loss from fire"
Mr.. Gilbert says that the question
is an exceedingly difficult one 10 an
swer satisfactorily in view of the
conflict in the authorities as to what
is or is not the direct or proximate
cause of the loss in particular case.
If the loss in the instance stated re-
suit proximately from the fire, the
insurer would be liable notwithstand-
ing the provisions to The conr2ry
A case is cited where the machin-
cry of an electrical company was GOV
cred by a fire policy, and by reason
of an accidental fire, a short circuit
was produced within the building,
causing the machinery TO break to
pieces as a result of the increased
electrical power applied to it. the
damage was held to result directly or
proximatciy from the fire.
If the merchandise and stock in the
case stated were to be specifically
covered by the policy. and damage
were TO result on account of de-
crease in tempe ature produced as
the direct result of Inc fire in another
part OF he building, the loss would
be- covered under the holding in the
Lynn case. Courts of high standing.
however, have refused TO follow the
doctrine in this case. In the absence
of authorities in this state. am un-
able TO advise YOU more specifically.
Stripped of technicality the opinion
holds that in the case in question the
burning of a refrigerator plant and
the consequent damage to goods
stored adjacent, through failure to
keep the temperature artificially cool
the insurance company is liable If the
goods in question are specifically emu
merated in the insurance contract,
otherwise il is not