General Rules.

Subd. II. Parties or persons insured.
Nos. 42, 50.
Section three.

Subd. I. Repair, rebuild, etc. Nos. 5,

Section four.

Subd. IV. Statement of interest. Nos. 2, 3.

Subd. V. Fraud and false swearing.
Nos. 36, 73, 74.
Section five.

Subd. I. Other insurance. No. 209.
Subd. V. Interest of insured. No. 65.
Subd. IX. Change in interest, etc.
Nos. 7, 22, 35, 96, 106, 109, 215a, 253, 279.
Subd. XII. Vacant or unoccupied.
No. 105.

When Insurance Voided by Violation.

originate with the camphene, by its own insured himself. Liverpool, London and ignition, but as a medium of its com- Globe Ins. Co. v. Gunther, 15 Ins. L. J. munication from outside or other cause, 161; 116 U. S. 113; rev'g, 20 Blatch. 362. thus occasioning a fire which would not 9.A contract of insurance upon a have happened, but for the presence of building, made before its completion, authat article on the premises. Harper v. thorizes its use in any common business City Ins. Co., 1 Bosw. 520; aff'd, 22 N. Y. 441. for which its construction is adapted, and 2.- A clause in a fire policy which pro- does not prohibit the keeping of hazardvided that if gunpowder or other articles ous articles for sale in such business, subject to legal restrictions should be though it prohibits their "storing." Renkept in greater quantities or in a differ-shaw v. Missouri State Mut. F. & M. ent manner than was provided by law, Ins. Co., 20 Ins. L. J. 385; 103 Mo. 595; 15 the policy should be void. Held, to have S. W. Rep. 945. reference only to articles of an intrinsic- 10. When insurance voided by vioally dangerous nature, as liable to cause lation. Where by the conditions subinjury accidentally or by carelessness, joined and referred to in a policy of and not to refer to liquors, the traffic in insurance on goods against fire, it is dewhich was made illegal by statute.clared "that if there should at any time Niagara Fire Ins. Co. v. De Graff, 12 be more than twenty-five pounds weight Mich. 124. of gunpowder on the premises insured, or

3. It is no answer to a defense by the where any goods are insured, such insurcompany based on the keeping of forbid-ance should be void, and no benefit deden inflammables by the assured, that the clauses forbidding them were unusual in policies; were not specially pointed out to him, and that he was not aware he was breaking any condition. Reeve, Case & Co. v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 23 La. Ann. 219.

4. The fact that a condition against *keeping and storing" does not prohibit a certain article, does not prevent its coming within the operation of a clause against "increase of risk." The latter is a question of fact, and if found affirmatively renders policy void. Williams v. People's Fire Ins. Co., 57 N. Y. 274.

5.- Prohibition against keeping and storing of oils cannot be construed to prohibit ordinary use of kerosene for lighting purposes. Bennett v. N. B. & M. Ins. Co., 8 Daly, 471; aff'd, 81 N. Y. 273.

6. The express restriction as to lights would seem to prevent the application of the construction made by the court under the old form in Carlin v. Western Assurance Co., 12 Ins. L. J. 388; 57 Md. 515.

7.- The change in the language as to usage or custom of trade would seem to make inapplicable the ruling of the court in Pittsburg Ins. Co. v. Frazee, 14 Ins. L. J. 512; 107 Pa. 521.

8. A violation of the condition as to keeping or using prohibited articles by any one permitted by the insured to occupy the premises is a violation by the

rived therefrom," etc.; the deposit of gunpowder over the above-mentioned weight will avoid the policy, although it was brought into the store for shipment, and was removed from the store at the time the fire broke out, but long before the fire reached the building containing the goods insured. Faulkner v. Central Fire Ins. Co. 1 Kerr, 279 (N. B.)

11. Where three adjoining houses were insured in one policy for a specified sum on each, and one of them, which at time of insurance was occupied as a shoe store, was afterward, without the knowledge or consent of the insurers changed into a grocery store, in which gunpowder was kept, and from an explosion of which all the houses were injured, the conditions annexed to the policy requiring “groceries and gunpowder" to be specified and pay a higher rate of premium, or policy should be void; held, that the change of occupation and keeping of gunpowder avoided the policy; and that the contract was entire, and there could be no recovery for the injury to any of the houses, although the assured did not know that gunpowder was kept by his tenant in the house. Fire Association v. Williamson, 26 Pa. 196.

12. A policy on a stock of meat was to be vitiated by the keeping of various articles, among which was saltpetre; the assured kept saltpetre in a keg for sale;

When Insurance is Not Voided.

it was proved to be customary for meat without inquiry and without application houses to keep fractions of a pound of or representations on the part of the insaltpetre to preserve the meat. Held, the sured, providing that it shall be void if company's knowledge of the character of gasoline is used upon the premises, althe business and of the necessity of keep-though reasonable investigation would ing saltpetre is no defense to the keeping have disclosed the fact that the stove was a quantity, and as merchandise on sale; in use when the policy was issued. and the policy was vitiated, whether such | *McFarland v. St. Paul F. & M. Ins. Co., keeping was dangerous or not. Commer- 49 N. W. Rep. 253; 46 Minn. 519. cial Ins. Co. v. Mehlman, 48 Ill. 313.

18. When insurance is not voided. 13.- Policy prohibiting the use of Placing gunpowder in a building with a kerosene oil, except in dwellings, is lighted match for the purpose of blowing avoided by use of such oil in a lamp left it up, to prevent the spread of a conflaupon the counter of a store as a protec-gration, is not a storing of it, within the tion against burglars. The store could meaning of the clause prohibiting “the not be considered a "dwelling" because storing of gunpowder on the premises." the clerk slept in a small room back of City Fire Ins. Co. v. Corlies, 21 Wend. the store. Cerf v. Home Ins. Co., 44 Cal. 367 (N. Y.) 320.

66

19.- Where policy provided that "the 14.- Policy contained condition that keeping of gunpowder for sale or on if petroleum, fluid, or crude earth storage upon or in the premises insured, or coal oils . . . should be used or kept, without written permission, shall render it should be void, except kerosene oil may the policy void," and it was shown that be used for lights in dwellings." Prop- assured had a small quantity of powder erty insured was a factory There was in the store, and for sale, before the polno permission in policy to use any kind icy was issued, and that it remained there of oil. At time of fire there were used for until the building was destroyed, but lights two ordinary lanterns filled with none was either sold or offered for sale "headlight oil." Held, that headlight after the policy issued; held, that the oil being a refined petroleum product, was policy was not thereby avoided. Prowithin the condition, and its use consti-tection Ins. Co. v. Harmer, 2 Ohio St. tuted a breach. Couch v. Rochester Ger- 452. man Ins. Co., 25 Hun, 469 (N. Y.)

15. An insurance policy allowing kerosene to be stored on the premises only for lights, "lamps to be filled and trimmed by daylight only," is avoided by drawing kerosene by lamplight to loan to a neighbor, whereby an explosion was caused and the building burned. Gunther v. Liverpool & L. & G. Ins. Co., 34 Fed. Rep. 501; aff'd, 134 U. S. 110; 19 Ins. L. J. 417. See also previous appeal, 116 U. S. 113; 15 Ins. L. J. 161; rev'g, 20 Blatch. 362.

16. Under a stipulation that insurance shall immediately cease if the assured uses naphtha, the insurance ceases when his use of naphtha involves the insured property in a substantial naphtha risk. *Wheeler v. Traders' Ins. Co., 62 N. H. 326.

17.- An insurance company is not liable for a loss by fire occasioned by the explosion of a gasoline stove, under a policy upon a dwelling house, issued

66

20.- Policy of insurance against fire,

on stock of goods and merchandise contained in plaintiff's store," provided that "the keeping of gunpowder for sale or on storage upon or in the premises insured should render the policy void." The assured kept a country store, and usually had one or two kegs of powder on hand, from which he retailed to customers, and had one keg at time of fire. In evidence it had been shown that it was usual to keep gunpowder in small quantities as part of the stock of such store. Held, that the word "premises" referred to buildings insured, and that the gunpowder was not kept upon or in the premises insured," within the meaning of the above prohibition. Leggett v. Ætna Ins. Co., 10 Rich. Law, 202 (S. C.)

21. The keeping of articles to be exhibited or to be used as means and instruments of a public exhibition, is not a use of the building "for the purpose of storing or keeping therein," such articles,

When Insurance is Not Voided.

within a clause in the policy relating to hazardous articles. Mayor, etc., of New York v. Hamilton Ins. Co., 10 Bosw. 537; aff'd, 39 N. Y. 45.

22. Where a policy issued to a druggist insured him against loss or damage by fire, on his stock of drugs, chemicals and other merchandise, "hazardous and extra hazardous;" held, that the policy covered a fire occasioned by the insured putting upon a stove on the premises about five gallons of an inflammable ointment for the purpose of warming it; it being usual for druggists to mix and melt ointments in that manner. Brown v. Kings County Fire Ins. Co., 31 How. 508 (N. Y.)

25.- Keeping a small quantity of saltpetre for purpose of preserving meat, etc., is not a "storing" within meaning of the policy. Bayly v. Lancashire Ins. Co., 4 Ins. L. J. 503 (U. S. Cir.)

26.- Policy prohibited use of gasoline for lighting. Building was lighted with gas made from gasoline. Held, that, in the absence of evidence that gas and gasoline were the same, or similar in most respects, that gasoline may not be used or burned in some other manner than gas which is manufactured from it, and that the gas is as dangerous as gasoline, it could not be assumed that the gas manufactured from the latter, was within the prohibition. Arkell v. Commerce Ins. 23. Policy contained provision that Co., 69 N. Y. 191; affig, 7 Hun, 455. petroleum, rock and earth oils, etc., 27.- Policy prohibited the keeping or should not be stored or used without having upon the premises benzine, and written permission, and also that cam- the keeping, having or using, camphene, phene, spirit gas or burning fluid, phos- spirit gas or any burning fluid or chemical gene or any other inflammable liquid oils. A can of benzine was procured by when used in manufactories as a light," required permission by indorsement. Property was paper mill, lighted by kerosene, and at time of fire there were in mill about forty gallons, a reasonable quantity for use for which it was provided. Held, that the kerosene was not “stored" within meaning of policy; that it came properly within the term "rock or earth oil," but that as policy must have been made in reference to wellknown fact that kerosene is reasonably safe and in ordinary and general use for lighting purposes, and was not specially prohibited, construing the clauses to gether, kerosene for lighting was not prohibited, it being proved that it was not properly classified as an "inflammable liquid." Buchanan v. Exchange Fire Ins. Co., 61 N. Y. 26.

the assured and placed and kept in a warehouse about fifty feet distant, from which it was brought on the premises and used for cleaning the machinery. Held, that the assured did not keep or have benzine on the premises within meaning of the policy, and that its use on the premises did not avoid the policy, because the use of benzine not being prohibited in terms, if prohibited at all, it must be because it is included within burning fluid or chemical oils, but that these words must be construed with what precedes them in the condition, and that under such construction the words burning fluid or chemical oils must mean only such fluids or oils as are in their nature like camphene or spirit gas, and that this was not a matter of which court would take judicial notice, but that it was a fact to be determined by the jury. Mears v. Humboldt Ins. Co., 9 Ins. L. J. 139; 92 Pa. 15.

27a. Condition against keeping or storing oil, etc., on premises not broken by the fact of there being about a gallon kept for lubricating purposes. Mitchell v. City of London Assur. Co., 15 Ont. App. 262 (Can.); aff`g, 12 Ont. 706.

24.- Plaintiff kept crude petroleum in a jug upon a shelf in his room, for use as a medicine, and several quarts were in building at time of fire. Policy contained usual provisions against "storing and keeping" such articles. Held, the words, "storing or keeping" were obviously aimed at storing or keeping in a mercantile sense, in considerable quantities, with a view to commercial traffic. They could 28. The plaintiff kept fireworks on not be construed to forbid the use of the petroleum as a medicine. Williams v. Firemen's Fund Ins. Co., 54 N. Y. 569.

the insured premises; held, this was not a violation of a clause of the policy prohibiting the keeping or using of gunpow

When on the Premises

Temporary or Habitual Use.

35.- Keeping of prohibited articles in an adjoining storehouse, not included in the description in the policy, does not violate the condition. Sperry v. Insurance Co. of N. A., 14 Ins. L. J. 141; 22 Fed. Rep. 516.

der upon the premises. Tischler v. Cali- Fire Ins. Co., 13 Ins. L. J. 97; 55 Vt. 142. fornia, etc., Ins. Co., 66 Cal. 178. 29. A privilege to use a gas apparatus, not actually exercised, nor intended to be exercised, but in fact abandoned, does not justify insured in keeping and storing gasoline not intended for use in such apparatus. Liverpool, London and Globe Ins. Co. v. Gunther, 15 Ins. L. J. 161; 116 U. S. 113; rev'g, 20 Blatch. 362.

30.— A policy of insurance providing that the insurer will not be liable for the use of kerosene" is not affected by the use of kerosene if the loss is not caused by such use. *Jones v. Howard Ins. Co., 117 N. Y. 103; 26 N. Y. S. Rep. 844; 22 N. East. Rep. 578.

36.- Keeping a barrel of crude petroleum in a shed adjoining a foundry, to supply, through a connecting pipe five or six feet long, fuel to a steam boiler within the foundry, such use not being a necessary incident to the business, is a breach of a condition in the fire insurance policy which stipulates that the policy shall become void “if in said premises there be kept petroleum or any chemical oils, 31. When on the premises. A clause without written permission in this policy in policy of insurance on "stock of cap (except the use of refined coal, kerosene or fronts and other goods" provided that other carbon oil for lights, if the same "lighting the premises insured, by cam- be drawn and the lamps filled by dayphene or spirit gas, without written per-light.") White v. Western Assur. Co., 4 mission in the policy, shall render it Cent. Rep. 723; 16 Ins. L. J. 233 (Pa.) void." Held, to apply to insurance on merchandise as well as on buildings, and to be binding on insured. Stettiner v. Granite Ins. Co., 5 Duer, 594 (N. Y.)

37.- Fireworks in another building of the insured upon the same land, from 20 to 50 feet from the building insured, described as a certain building situated on a certain side of the premises, are not on the "premises," within a policy providing it shall be void upon the keeping of fireworks on the premises. Allemania F. Ins. Co. v. Pittsburgh Exposition Soc., 10 Cent. Rep. 292; 11 Atl. Rep. 572 (Pa.)

32.- Where a policy of insurance on a patent leather manufactory allowed keeping benzole in no place but in a shed detached from the building, the fact that the insured, in conducting their business, used benzole and carried it as needed into the factory, in an open can, is not a breach 38.- Keeping a can of gasoline 10 or of the conditions of the insurance. Ben-12 feet from an insured building is not obzole being ordinarily used in such manu-noxious to a clause in the policy prohibitfactory, the presumption is that it was ing the keeping or storing of it on the intended that it might be used as it is ordinarily in similar factories. Citizens' Ins. Co. v. McLaughlin, 53 Pa. 485.

33.- When policy provides that no gasoline shall be stored on the premises, the word premises must be construed to mean the building and does not prevent the assured from storing gasoline on his lot outside of the building in reasonable quantities for use therein. Northwestern Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Germania Fire Ins. Co., 40 Wis. 446.

premises described in the policy. *La Force v. Williamsburg City F. Ins. Co., 43 Mo. App. 518.

39. Temporary or habitual use. Policy on building "where no fire is kept, and no hazardous goods deposited." A tar barrel (which was "hazardous ") was introduced, and from it, the building caught fire. Held, that the stipulations referred to the habitual use of fire, and the ordinary deposit of goods, not to the occasional introduction of either. Dobson v. Sotheby, 1 Moody & M. 90; 22 Eng. C. L. 481.

34.- When policy prohibited the keeping of certain articles "upon or in the premises insured it was held that the 40.- Where policy prohibited an approhibition did not apply when the in-propriation of the building for the pursurance was on goods and groceries, and pose of "storing" certain enumerated that the word premises meant "lands articles, among which were "oils and and tenements." Mosley v. Vermont Mut. | spirituous liquors;" held, that the keep