From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Charter Oak Fire Ins. Co. v. Gerrity

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
Feb 20, 1950
181 F.2d 614 (D.C. Cir. 1950)

Opinion

Nos. 10360, 10361.

Argued February 9, 1950.

Decided February 20, 1950. Writ of Certiorari Denied May 1, 1950. See 70 S.Ct. 805.

Messrs. Ernest A. Swingle and William E. Miller, Washington, D.C., with whom Messrs. Edwin A. Swingle and Allen C. Swingle, Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for appellants.

Mr. William E. Leahy, Washington, D.C., with whom Mr. Raymond F. Garrity, Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for appellees.

Before CLARK, PROCTOR and BAZELON, Circuit Judges.


These two cases involve the question of whether or not the explosion which demolished the appellees' home occurred as a result of hazards inherent therein so as to come within the provisions of the "Inherent explosion clause" attached to each of three fire insurance policies issued by appellants covering the aforesaid home and furnishings.

Judge Holtzoff in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia held, in an able opinion, that the "Inherent explosion clause" afforded coverage to appellees for the damages resulting from the explosion. We hold that he correctly decided the case and hereby adopt his opinion. The judgment is accordingly

Gerrity, et al. v. Charter Oak Fire Ins. Co., Gerrity, et al. v. United States Fire Ins. Co. of New York, D.C.D.C. 1949, 82 F. Supp. 631.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Charter Oak Fire Ins. Co. v. Gerrity

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
Feb 20, 1950
181 F.2d 614 (D.C. Cir. 1950)
Case details for

Charter Oak Fire Ins. Co. v. Gerrity

Case Details

Full title:CHARTER OAK FIRE INS. CO. v. GERRITY et al. UNITED STATES FIRE INS. CO. OF…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

Date published: Feb 20, 1950

Citations

181 F.2d 614 (D.C. Cir. 1950)

Citing Cases

New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. Fromer

But it is equally true that where the language is clear and definite there is no reason to apply the rule of…

Goldner v. Otsego Mut. Fire Ins. Co.

This physical separation of that which exploded from the insured premises in conjunction with the fact that…