The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1913-02-06
GASOLINE IS NOT
PART OF A HOUSE
Court of Appeals Says So. and
Upsets Verdict for Big
Damages.

Is gasoline q part of building2
The United states Circuit Court of APP
meals Yesterday. in an opinion by Judge
Mcdowell. answered the question in
the NEGATIVE and reversed the Judg-
ment of the District Court at Charles
ION ". Va. allowing Mrs. Il. y Edgar.
# Charleston. s.. poo indemnity against
the Maryland Casualty Company.
The case hinges upon the interpre-
tation Of . couDIe INGENUITY clause IN
an aec,oent ponoy issued by the Mary
lsno Casualty Company, lnsurIng J. b.
n.agar. OF Charleston. W. Va, among
vtner things. against INJURY IN con-
sequence UI Jnv Dui nins 81 a Du4Iulns
NnlIe the insured Is tneIein.
II ,.,e...s from me record that Mr..
EQla., vn i n.snt ia Sep.elnoei, 1879
n.,..-uutu 10 tIc ScllaT VI mas IcSlUSHCv
A., lu,es.lAa1e . nOOUeG cOnuItlOn tnat
,,.,.,.leu tnv4 { sts Lne result OF bursting
,,ater NOES 1he nooO of wafer, IL
seems. nau overturned bottie con-
,a.n4ng Sasoune, ana the Oh had
spread on Jhe surface. When. after
u snort investigation with a HShted
match, ne cropped The glowing stump
The gasoline exploded with LOUD re-
port. setting fire 10 the surroundings.
Dies From Burns.
The fire was speedily extinguished.
but Mr. Edgar had received severe
burns as the result of the explosion,
and died several DAYS after His
widow brought action to recover $1,000
provided for under the double indem-
nifty clause OF the policy issued by the
MARYLAND Casualty Company. The
District Court at Charleston. after d
trial by jury. returned a verdict for
$4,000 in favor OF the plaintiff; and the
case was appealed 10y the casualty
company.
In the coures Of the trial the de-
PENDANT company noted numerous ex-
oeotions TO the Instructions of the trial
Judge II took the position through o
out that the death Of Mr.. Edgar did
not result from burning building
within the mea@ins and intent Of the
double indemnify clause. and that the
plaintiff was entitled to only $500.
Killed by Explosion.
We are Il.ap4e'-tO perceive" reads
she OPINION oI lne Court oi Appeals.
that Eusar sustained the INJURY OF
which ne dieo al consequence OF the
burning Of DuIIGIng- Continued
STUDY OF the language Of the wit
uesses but strengthens the conviction
that he was burned by the explosion
~ the gasoline and before the build 70
lng commenced burning
il is conceded by the court that the
double iroemuity clause In question
has been interpreted ny competent au-
thorities 10 cover an injury received
from the burning Of the contents Of
builoln-- ~ its opinion, however.
such = claim cannot Be supported III
fais case. because gasoline is not "a
part Of q building
Before the protection ~ this clause
can he invoked. The court says. the
burning of a bulidin- must De- shown
90 have had Oh csusal relation 90 the
injury j. the case ll question. the
opinion holds. the o-rrirr o. the
building was lot even coltef1rorsue
Gus with the injury to 49, Eagar. Pat
followed g. since bee was injured b.,
tho sane rame That started the fire
The judgment ~ the District Court
70 Charleston was reversed AND Gle
ar. ~errauded Tor rev TRIAL