Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection & Ins. v. Henry Sonneborn & Co.

Briscoe, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This is an action on an insurance policy issued by the apr pellant company to the appellees to recover loss and damage to the property of the assured, contained in certain premises ⁶²⁷ occupied by the appellees as a wholesale clothing house, at the comer of Eutaw and German streets, Baltimore, caused by the explosion of a steam boiler, insured therein. The policy of insurance sued on is dated the 25th of August, 1899, and insured the appellees “ against all immediate loss or damage, except by fire, to the property oí the assured, or to property of others for which the assured may be liable, wherever located, caused by the explosion, collapse or rupture of either of two horizontal steam boilers, on the premises of the assured.” The plaintiff alleges in the declaration, as the cause of the accident, that on the 4th day of April, 1902, while the policy was in force, the cast iron elbow of the blow pipe of one of the two boilers which were insured, and which were in the cellar of the building, exploded, and in consequence thereof large quantities of heated steam escaped and damaged the property in the cellar of the building. It also states as a further and immediate consequence of the escape of the steam that the heads of certain sprinklers in the automatic sprinkler system in the cellar were melted and large quantities of water escaped through these heads and damaged certain merchandise of the plaintiff, whereby loss and damage were incurred to the amount of $2,140.85.

By a bill of particulars filed by the plaintiffs on demand, it appears that one-half of the loss was caused by the escape of heated steam from the blow pipe, and the remaining one-half by the escape of water through the heads of the automatic sprinkler system. The defendant in the case concedes its liability under the policy of insurance for loss directly caused by the steam, but resists payment for the loss caused by water from the automatic sprinklers. There were two questions submitted to the Court below and they were: first, what amount of damage was caused by steam and what by water from the sprinklers; second, is the defendant liable at all under the policy for loss caused by the water. The proof in the case, we think, was amply sufficient to sustain the conclusion reached by the Court below upon the first question, but being one of fact it is not before us for review. ⁶²⁸ The second and controlling question depends for its solution upon the construction to be placed upon the words “ immediate loss or damage ” used in the policy of insurance, and is distinctly raised by the prayers in the case.

The Court ruled by the plaintiff’s prayer that under the evidence the defendant was liable for the loss and damage caused by the contact of the steam and water from the boiler with the merchandise, and also for the damage by the water escaping from the sprinkler system. The defendant’s prayer, which was rejected by the Court, submitted the proposition that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover under the policy for the damage done by water from the sprinklers. Now it would extend this opinion beyond what is necessary to review in detail all of the evidence submitted in the case and in view of the well-settled decisions of this Court to go into an examination of those from other States cited in argument. The undisputed facts show that the explosion of the boiler in the cellar was the direct and efficient cause of the damage and loss to the property.

The escaped steam from this boiler, by reason of the heat, melted the solder on the sprinkler heads and set in motion the water which caused the damage. The witness, Sonneborn, testified that there was in the basement of the building at the time he moved into it and when the policy was effected, what is known as the automatic sprinkler system for the extinguishment of fire, and this system was almost indispensable in mercantile establishments. He described it as consisting of a series of pipes which run along the ceiling; that these pipes are charged