cally mentioned in the policy. The Hamilton case mentioned above (note 4) is a good illustration of the limitations put upon this clause.

SECTION 2. FIRE INSURANCE.

§ 112. Language of policy. The fire policy insures the person named in the policy against "all direct loss or damage by fire" (6). A somewhat careful examination of these words is necessary in order to ascertain the exact extent to which the courts have gone in giving a recovery.

§ 113. What is a fire? It is to be noted that there may be a burning or combustion without fire. Fire, in the meaning of the insurance policy, is a combustion plus light and heat. Hence, in one case where wool had been soaked in water and then left, until, as a result of the chemical reaction it became extremely hot and presented a charred appearance, but there had been no flame, the loss was held not to be a loss by fire (7). So damage caused merely by lightning, if no fire results from it, is not a loss within the meaning of the policy, since lightning is not fire but an electric phenomenon (8). The New York Standard policy and many of the modern policies specifically put this matter beyond doubt by expressly excepting losses by lightning (9), although there is also a provision in the New York Standard policy providing for covering all those kinds of losses if specifically mentioned (10).

(6) App. E, 1. 4.

(7) Woollen Mills v. Insurance Co., 139 Fed. 637.

§ 114. "Friendly" and "Hostile" fires. In the next place, one must distinguish the case where the only fire is one that was intended by the insured, but which incidentally produces certain unintended losses. These losses are not recoverable under a fire insurance policy. The leading case on this point is Austin v. Drewe (11). In that case the insured owned a sugar refinery. Owing to the negligence of his servants, a flue in the drying room was left closed one night, and the result was that in the morning the sugar in that room was found to be ruined by the smoke which had worked out through the mill because of closing this flue. The court held that there could be no recovery, for there was no fire except the fire that they intended to have in the heating plant, and the utmost that could be said was that the fire had done something that they did not intend should be done. A modern case that illustrates the same principle is a case where the insured negligently let the water run out of the pipes in his boiler while the fire was still going, and because of that the boiler was ruined. This loss, for the same reason as before, was held not to be within the policy (12). The principle illustrated by these two cases is that of the so-called "friendly" fire, meaning thereby a fire that is intended. On the other hand, contrast with these two cases the following one. The insured set fire to a lot of papers that he had in his stove, with the intention of burning them up. Owing to the intense heat from the papers burning in the stove, the soot in the chimney caught fire and damaged

(11) 6 Taunton, 436.

(12)

American Towing Co. v. Insurance Co., 74 Md, 25,

the inside of the chimney. This loss was held to be within the policy (13). The distinction between the two groups of cases is obvious. In the latter case the fire as originally started was a friendly fire, and if there had been no further combustion than that in the stove, the fact that unintended losses resulted therefrom would not have given a recovery, but the friendly fire, when it set fire to the soot in the chimney, then became a "hostile" or unintended fire, and then of course of the kind covered by the insurance.

§ 115. Fires set by third persons. It is obvious that any fire set by a third person, although it may be intended by him, is, as regards the insured, a hostile fire, and of course there can be a recovery for any damage caused thereby. It is equally clear, on the other hand, that under no circumstances can the insured recover for a fire purposely set by himself. In this latter connection, however, one must bear in mind the principle mentioned in connection with marine insurance, that mere negligence upon the part of the insured, no matter how extreme, will not bar a recovery by him for any fire loss resulting therefrom, provided, of course, that the negligence is not so great that it may fairly be inferred that the burning was in reality intended. Thus, where the insured attempted to smoke wasps out of a hay barn by lighting a wisp of hay and thrusting it into the dry timbers of the hay barn, in close proximity to the hay, it was held that, although his negligence was extreme, since there was no evidence of bad

(13) Way v. Insurance Co., 166 Mass. 67.

faith, he was not barred from recovering on the policy (14).

§ 116. Losses that are recoverable. Once there is a hostile fire, the insurer is responsible for all the consequences thereof: first, which follow directly from the fire without any other intervening cause; and second, which, although they did not follow directly from the fire, are such natural consequences of it that they may fairly be regarded as being within the contemplation of the parties to the contract, as losses intended to be covered thereby (15).

§ 117. Direct losses. Illustrations of the first kind of losses are damages to the property insured from charring, although the property has not been actually burned; and damages by smoke or cinders are of course on the same footing. So, where a match was accidentally dropped in a barrel of gunpowder, which exploded and wrecked the insured building, the company was held liable, not only for the loss caused by the actual fire, but also for the losses resulting from the explosion, since the explosion was itself a fire and the immediate cause of all the subsequent damage (16). Many policies now contain a clause that the company is not to be liable for losses caused by explosions. Where the policy has this clause, and there is a fire which in turn causes an explosion, the company is liable only for so much of the damage as is caused by the fire. Where the situation is reversed, and there is an explosion which in turn causes a fire, the company is not

(14)

Johnson v. Insurance Co., 4 Allen (Mass.) 388. (15) App. E, 1. 4.

(16) Scripture v. Insurance Co., 10 Cush. (Mass.) 356.

liable either for the loss traceable directly to the explosion, or for that caused by the fire, since the real cause of the whole loss is the original explosion (17). The New York Standard policy, however, would seem to cover the fire loss following the explosion (18).

In connection with this first group of losses, it should be noted that it makes no difference how remote the damage may be, if it can be traced by an unbroken chain of causation to the fire. Thus, in one case, an electric light plant was insured against losses by fire. A fire occurred in the wire tower. The tower and its contents were very slightly injured, but this small fire in the wire tower caused a short circuit, and, as a result of this short circuit, the machinery in another distant part of the building was badly damaged. The court held that the damage to this machinery was recoverable under the fire policy. The court said: "When it is said that the cause to be sought is the direct and proximate cause, it is not meant that the cause or agency which is nearest in time or place to the result is necessarily to be chosen. The active efficient cause which sets in motion a train of events which brings about the result, without the intervention of any force started and working actively from a new and independent source, is the direct and proximate cause referred to in the policy" (19).

§ 118. Indirect losses. Turning now to the second group of cases that are covered by the fire policy, a very

(19) Lynn Gas. Co. v. Insurance Co., 158 Mass. 570.