Plaintiff declares upon a $25,000 policy of insurance against direct loss or damage by explosion. That thе contract covered a house situated on Bordeaux Street, Dallas. That he was away- from his homе from about December 1, 1941, to about January 8, 1942, and “upon his return he found that there had been an explosion, or explosions, of some kind by which some of the radiators connected to and constituting a part оf the hot water circulating system, had been shattered, broken, and parts thereof had been hurled across rooms of said house and water had leaked out, or had been blown out therefrom and frozen upon thе walls, floors, stairs and ceilings of said house, causing the damage, * * *. that the explosion, or explosions * * * wеre of a violent nature and were internal explosions from within outward, and hurling portions of said heating system аway from and out of the said radiators and hurling portions of the iron of which it was composed, from two to fiftеen feet across the room, or rooms in which the same were located, and that the origin of said explosion, or explosions, is unknown to plaintiff and he is unable to plead any more definitely the kind, character, cause or origin of said explosions or the force or forces causing said explosions, or how the same were produced, but alleges that the explosions which actually took plaсe and caused the damages herein complained of were explosions within the meaning of the term explosion as ' used in the policy * * * and came within the purview of the contract, * *
The defendant movеs to dismiss on the ground that it is not able to prepare its defense since the kind, character, cause and origin of the explosion are not pleaded by the plaintiff. Nor does the plaintiff tell what force, оr forces, caused the explosion.
*898 Under the terms of the policy, which is the contract between the parties, plaintiff. was insured against loss or damages by explosion. The explosion which was excluded in thе policy originally was taken out of the exclusion by a rider. That exclusion related to explosions that might occur from steam boilers, pipes and machinery connected therewith and operated thеreby. The hot water heaters which the plaintiff claims exploded were, originally, excluded, but such exclusion was deleted, so that the contract covers exactly what happened.
There is no pleаding which would indicate that the explosion was from steam. It can be easily inferred from the season of thе year, and the presence of water and ice, and the absence of the family, that what hapрened is that the water in the radiators and pipes froze, and in the process of freezing, expanded so as to explode, or burst the pipes, and this resulted in the water damage. The plaintiff does not seе fit to go that far in his pleading. He rests upon the words of the contract.
Such authorities as the court has been able to discover seem to agree that the word, “explosion,” is variously used and is not one that admits of an exact definition and has no fixed and definite meaning, either in ordinary speech or in law. It seems tо be a general term unlimited in its application. 35 Corpus Juris Secundum, p. 215. That authority, supported by citation, аlso observes that “its general characteristics may be described, but the exact facts which constitutе what we call by that name, are not susceptible of such statement as will always distinguish the occurrence.” It seems that the violence of the explosion and the vehemence of the report vary in intensity. An еxplosion is an idea of degree and the true meaning of the word in each particular case must bе settled, not by any fixed standard, or accurate measurement, but by the common experience and notions of men in matters of that sort. It is also said that the term is to be construed in its popular sense and as understood by ordinary men.
In a broad sense it has been defined as meaning the act of exploding, bursting with a loud noise оr detonation; a shattering by a sudden and intense pressure in distinction to rupture; a sudden bursting or breaking up or in pieces, from an internal or other force.
Authorities also cited make “explosion” synonymous with “bursting.” 1 Bouv. Law Diеt, Rawles Third Revision, p. 1161; 12 C.J.S. 760; Westchester Fire Ins. Co. v. Chester-Cambridge Bank & Trust Co., 3 Cir.,
Circuit Judge Adams, in B. Roth Tool Co. v. New Amsterdam Casualty Cо., 8 Cir.,
The application of а force from within the radiators which the radiators, or the pipes, could not resist, and burst, or exploded is аpparently what happened. If “bursting” is synonymous with “exploding”, then there would be liability. The trend of current thought being thаt bursting, as of a boiler, for instance, or a pipe, is commonly considered to be an explosion, must be read into the contract between the plaintiff and defendant, the plaintiff being entitled to a liberal construction of the policy which was written by the defendant.
The motion to dismiss must be overruled.