Although a fire is raging in an adjacent building and at the time of the expiration of the policy a loss is inevitable, yet if, in fact, no fire has broken out at such expiration, there can be no recovery ; Rochester German Ins. Co. v. Peasler Co., 120 Ky. 752, 87 S. W. 1115, 27 Ky. L. Rep. 1155, 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 364; 9 Ann. Cas. 324.
A loss by reason of fire started by an ex plosion caused by a fire coming in contact with escaping gas was not within a policy which excepted loss by reason of or result ing from any explosion whatever ; 2 Ins. L. J. 190. When damages by explosion are ex cepted unless caused by fire, the insurer is held liable only for the result of fire and not of the explosion which caused it ; L. R. 3 Exch. 71; or by one caused by fire in its course ; id.; contra, Washburn v. Ins. Co., 2 Fed. 633; Transatlantic Fire Ins. Co. of Hamburg v. Dorsey, 56 Md. 70, 40 Am. Rep. 403.
Though a fire policy provides that there shall be no recovery for loss caused by earth quakes, the insured recover for damage from a fire originally caused by an earth quake; Williamsburgh City Fire Ins. Co. v. Willard, 164 Fed. 404, 90 C. C. A. 392, 21 L. R. A. (N. S.) 103.
A fire in a chimney, caused by accidental ignition of soot, or smoke issuing from such fire, is within a policy covering all loss or damage by fire to all goods contained in the building ; Way v. Ins. Co., 166 Mass. 67, 43 N. E. 1032, 32 L. R. A. 608, 55 Am. St. Rep. 379. So also a loss by spontaneous combus tion was held to be within a fire policy; 9 L. C. Q. B. 448 ; but see a criticism of this case in Providence Washington Ins. Co. v. Adler, 65 Md. 162, 4 Atl. 121, 57 Am. Rep. 314. Where a policy insures against explo sion and accident and there was an excep tion of explosion or loss caused by the burn ing of the building, a destruction of the prop erty by an explosion caused by raising a cloud of starch dust in an endeavor to ex tinguish flames was held a fire loss and not within the policy; American Steam Boiler Ins. Co. v. Refining Co., 57 Fed. 294, 6 C. C. A. 336, 21 L. R. A. 572.
Fire insurance does not cover damage by lightning without combustion ; Andrews v. Ins. Co., 37 Me. 256; Kenniston v. Ins. Co., 14 N. H. 341, 40 Am. Dec. 192 ; even when the policy covers "fire, by lightning ;" Babcock v. Ins. Co., 4 N. Y. 326. It is quite usual to add to a fire policy what is known as a "lightning clause," which covers loss from that cause with or without fire; but a company authorized to take fire risks is not thereby authorized to insure against lightning; Andrews v. Ins. Co., 37
Me. 256. A policy of insurance against light ning was held to cover destruction by tor nado when the former accompanied the lat ter; Spensley v. Ins. Co., 54 Wis. 433, 11 N. W. 894.
Under a lightning clause attached to a fire policy, on horses "contained in" a barn, the insurer was held liable for a brood mare pasturing, in a field. The policy against loss by lightning was said to be a contract of insurance of a peculiar kind, which must be construed in a reasonable, common-sense view, and so as not to reduce the contract to an absurdity; Haws v. Fire Ass'n, 114 Pa. 431, 7 Atl. 159; in this case the insurance was on horses alone, and, on that ground, they were distinguished in a later case, in which the policy embraced also property kept in a, barn, other than live stock, and the com pany was held not liable for a horse killed by lightning while in pasture; Haws v. Ins. Co., 130 Pa. 113, 15 Atl. 915, 18 Atl. 621, 2 L. R. A. 52.
Where an insurance policy excepts loss caused directly or indirectly by fire it is an accident, and not a fire, policy, and the complaint must show that the loss was not caused directly or indirectly by fire; West ern Refrigerator Co. v. Ins. & Sec. Co., 51 Fed. 155.
When the insurance was against loss by "fire or storm," it did not cover damage by a freshet caused by melting snow with prevailing south winds and rain; Stover v. Ins. Co., 3 Phila. (Pa.) 38.
The exception of "loss by fire occasioned by mobs or riots," does not extend to a loss from the burning of a bridge by military authorities in time of war;' Harris v. Ins. Co., 50 Pa. 341; of the risks of this class, usurped power is not an ordinary mob but a rebellious one or one having political pur pose ; 2 Wilson 363; it is "rebellion con ducted by authority ;" Lord Mansfield in Langdale v. Mason, 2 Marsh. Ins. 792 ; but it is not necessary that the destruction be commanded by a superior officer ; Barton v. Ins. Co. of ,New York, 42 Mo. 156, 97 Am. Dec. 329 ; insurrection is "a seditious rising against the government, a rebellion, a re volt ;" Spruill v. Life Ins. .Co., 46 N. C. 126 ; and a riot is "where three or more persons actually do an unlawful act, either with or without a common cause . . . the inten tion with which the parties assemble, or at least act, being unlawful ;" id.; but in an other case it was held that the destruction of property in a riot is within the exception even if the rioters assembled originally for a lawful purpose ; Dupin v. Ins. Co., 5 La. Ann. 482.