| Va. | Jan 20, 1921
Lead Opinion
delivered the opinion of the court.
This is an action on a fire insurance policy to recover for damage done by fire to a dwelling house in the city of Dan-ville. The policy was the “standard policy,” and provided, amongst other things, that the company should not be liable for loss caused directly or indirectly by riot, or by order of any civil authority, “or (unless fire ensues, and in that event, for damages by fire only) by explosion,of any kind.” The company pleaded the general issue, and also, by special pleas and by statement in writing of its grounds of defense, set up the further defenses, that the loss was caused by riot, that it was caused by order of civil authority, and that it was caused by explosion from which the fire did not ensue. ' Issue was taken on these pleas, and there .was a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff for $1,000, and of this the insurance company complains.
The circumstances under which the fire occurred were as follows: On October 12, 1917, Walter Clark, a negro, who was being sought by the police for some offense he was alleged to have committed, took refuge in the house which he
When Police Sergeant Martin was questioned as to the conduct of the crowd, he said: “All that I saw up until the body had fallen out of the door was quiet, peaceful and orderly and part of them curious, sitting up in trees, and some of them up on the house and up on the fence.
“Q. Just watching the proceedings?
“A. Just looking on and lots of them had rifles and shotguns and pistols, sitting up there to keep him from doing any other damage, and if they could see him they were going to kill him.
“Q. The object was to assist in arresting or obtaining this man?
“A. In the right and proper way as far as I could see. I didn’t see anyone doing anything wrong.”
When the Commonwealth’s attorney was asked whether
“Lots of citizens were there armed with revolvers, rifles and shot-guns. One of them gave me a pistol. I never used it and never was anywhere that I could fire to any advantage and never used it. They were bent on getting this man. My first thought was whether there was any possibility of getting him alive and away from the crowd. I soon came to the conclusion that that was impossible for the reason that the temper of the crowd, I didn’t believe, would admit of it, and for another reason that the conduct of the negro himself indicated that he intended to die fighting. There didn’t seem to be any difference then in the object of either the police or the crowd. I think they were both satisfied that the negro must be killed and the crowd and the police were working in absolute harmony. I saw no disposition to override the authorities or to contest them until after Clark came from the house and when he walked out he was shot and momentarily his body held in the air by this continued firing.”
A number of errors are assigned in the petition, some of which would have to be sustained, thereby resulting in a reversal, but they pale into insignificance beside the only assignments which we deem it necessary to consider.
On the trial, the circuit court (besides other instructions) gave two instructions, one for the plaintiff and the other for the defendant, as follows:
Instruction for the Plaintiff. — “The court instructs the jury that even if they should believe from the evidence that the mayor ordered the building set on fire, that if they further believe that the fire was started by Officers Martin
Instruction for the Defendant. — “The court further instructs the jury that under the terms of the policy sued on in this case the defendant company is not liable for loss or damage by fire caused by order of any civil authority, and if they believe from the evidence that the building insured under the policy sued on was set on fire by John R. Tucker, a policeman of said city of Danville, with the aid and assistance of other policemen and citizens, and that said Tucker and said other policemen and citizens in so setting said building on fire were acting under the authority of Harry Wooding, mayor of said city, and that as a result of said act of said Tucker and such other policemen and citizens said building was partially burned, and the loss or damage to said building for which this action is brought was occasioned thereby, that the fire so set out as aforesaid was by order of civil authority, and the defendant is not liable for the damage caused thereby.”
There was no conflict in the testimony on the subject of the setting out of the fire, and just what took place will be best understood by stating the facts in their chronological order. A crowd had gathered about the building, numerous shots had been fired into it with the hope of striking Clark therein, and the building had been dynamited two or three times, but all to no effect. In the meantime, Clark had shot from his place of concealment and wounded three of those who were seeking his arrest. About half an hour after the dynamiting and when all other efforts to dislodge Clark had failed, the fire chief of the city came up to Carter, the attorney for the Commonwealth for the city, who was in the crowd, and after telling him of the futile efforts that had been made, asked “whether the house ought to be fired,” and the reply was: “I told him it ought and to go ahead at once. He wanted to know about the mayor, and I told him I would find the mayor, or have some one find him and I was sure the mayor would agree.” Thereupon the fire chief, without seeing the mayor or having any orders from him, “went ahead and attempted to fire the house,” but “failed to set it afire.” In the meantime, Carter, the attorney for the Commonwealth, went around to the back of the building, where he was told by some officer who had seen the mayor that the mayor had not given him permission to set fire to the house. He testified that while standing in the back yard, “some of the officers and some of the citizens came up to me very much excited and gesticulating with pistols in my face this way (indicating), and asked me why they couldn’t set fire to the house. I replied that I thought it ought to be done, but that the mayor didn’t agree. I didn’t see the mayor then. The mayor wasi
Apparently every one was waiting for the command, or at least the assent of the mayor, and it does not appear that any effort was made to fire the building until after' this command or assent was given or assured, and that the building was fired “in a few minutes” after the order was given. The fire was actually set by Policeman Tucker, with the assistance of Policeman Martin and a stranger. Carter, the attorney for the Commonwealth, whose testimony we have just quoted, was also present. The testimony of Martin and of Tucker, so far as relevant, is given in their own language:
Martin testified as follows:
“Q. You have testified, Mr. Martin, that you and Mr. Tucker set the building on fire which, to the best of your knowledge, was the first fire in the building. Will you please state, Mr. Martin, whether in setting it on fire you were acting under any official authority or instructions which you had gotten from any officials?
“A. No, nobody hadn’t given me no orders, but somebody was saying, ‘Set it afire,’ but who they were and who said ‘Set it afire’ I don’t know, but we set it.
“Q. But you weren’t acting under any authority given you by anybody?
“A. No, sir, I went in there'and Mr. Tucker went in this room breaking up kindling, fixing to set it afire and I lit in and helped him.”
When asked if anybody else was helping bim and Tucker to set the building on fire, he replied, “Chief Brooks, chief
On cross-examination he testified as follows:
“Q. You had heard them say around there to set it on fire.
“A. Somebody said ‘Set it afire/ but I had no orders from the mayor or the .judge.
“Q. You mean by that that the mayor did not come to you and say to you, ‘Go and set that house on fire’ ?
“A. No.
“Q. And the Commonwealth’s attorney hadn’t said that or the judge, but you heard that said, ‘Set the house afire/ and you went in and saw Tucker at work setting it afire ?
“A; I had heard that all along but I paid no attention to it, and finally I walked in there and set it afire.
“By the Court:
“Q. Did you see Mr. John Carter there before the house was set on fire?
“A. Yes, sir.
“By Mr. Harris:
“Q. Did you hear him say anything about setting it on fire?
“A. I never heard him say anything about it at all.”
Tucker testified as follows:
“Q. Did you hear Sergeant Martin’s testimony this morning as to the fire being set out by you and Sergeant Martin ?
“A. Yes, sir.
“Q. Did you and Sergeant Martin set out the fire together there?
“A. Yes, sir, together with another party, a carnival fellow. I never did get his name.
“A. I don’t know where it came from.
“Q. Did you get it from any one of those?
• “A. I did not * * * when they said ‘fire the house’ I wanted to fire it about an hour before we did, so the news came from somebody; who it came from I don’t know * * *.
“Q. At the time you set that fire out and at the time you went to the rear part of this building and set another fire out you knew that somebody had given orders to fire it, didn’t you, or so understood?
“A. I thought they had because I had asked Judge Peatross an hour before that to let us fire.
“Q. You were under the impression when you set that fire out that orders had been given to fire the building?
“A. Yes, sir, by some one. I didn’t take time—
“By the Court:
“Q. What did you say?
“A. I said I thought by some one but I didn’t know who and I didn’t leave the front to go and find out who ordered it because the fire hose was pulled up at that time and was right in front of the place and a stream of water was already in it.”
* 1 * * * * * * * *
“By the Court:
“Q. What ■ did you say about having any information about setting fire to that house?
“A. At the time I spoke of it?
“Q. What did you say about having an order from the civil authorities to do it at that time?
“A. I didn’t know who the orders came from.
“Q. Did you know at that time that an order had been issued?
An examination of this testimony shows that Martin was not acting on his own initiative, but that he just “lit in and helped” Tucker, and if Tucker was authorized so was he. His cross-examination also shows that when he said that he was not authorized by the mayor, he meant that the mayor did not come to him and say: “Go and set that house afire.” An examination of the testimony of Tucker shows that he “wanted to fire it about an hour before we did,” but he refrained from doing so until he received orders to do it, and that he received such orders. It is true he testified that he did not know at the time from whom the order emanated nor by whom it was communicated, but he did know that he received an order, and when he received it “that is when I went in.” The uncontradicted evidence is that the order was given by the mayor, and that “in a few minutes the gasoline was brought there and the house was fired” by Tucker and his assistants, after being informed by some one that the order to fire had been issued. About the time Tucker was firing the house, a man named “Griffin drove the oil wagon up,” and “set down a five gallon can of gasoline,” saying “here is some gasoline.” Tucker took the gasoline, threw it into the burning building and it was speedily burned.
The following facts appear from the record, and are not disputed: The fire was set by Policeman 'Tucker assisted by Policeman Martin, who simply “lit in and helped him.” An hour before, he had endeavored to get authority to set the fire, but could not. Several policemen and others, very much excited and gesticulating with pistols in the face of the attorney for the Commonwealth of the city, demanded to know why they could not set fire to the house, when the
The verdict of the jury, therefore, so far as it holds to the contrary was plainly without evidence to support it, and was contrary to the law laid down in the instructions, and the trial court should have set it aside for that reason and entered final judgment for the defendant in accordance with section 6251 of the Code. Had this been done, we should have been compelled simply to have affirmed the judgment.
The very interesting question of whether the order of the mayor was the “order of any civil authority,” so ably argued by counsel on both sides, must be left undecided. So far as it affects this case, the law on that subject was fixed by the instruction of the trial court given at the instance of the defendant, to which the plaintiff did not object then, and to which she cannot object now. The law of the case as .thus ascertained being with the defendant, and the evidence showing that the fire set by the policeman was so set in pursuance of the order of the mayor, this court, in pursuance of section 6365 of the Code, must enter such judgment as is warranted by the undisputed facts of the case. Assuming the law as fixed, there are sufficient facts before this court to enable it to attain the ends of
Dissenting Opinion
dissenting:
As I understand the testimony in this case, it shows clearly that the two police officers of the city of Danville, who set the fire in question, did this for the purpose of capturing, dead or alive, the fugitive from justice, who was resisting arrest, had just a few minutes before killed one of the officers attempting his arrest and seriously wounded others, and was even then firing at every opportunity with murderous intent upon all who approached him; that they would have set the fire as they did if there had been no assembly of people whatsoever, but only the other officers outside of the building; that this action in setting the fire was not actuated by or in concert with the intent or action of such assembly of people, but wholly independent thereof; that these two acted on their own personal initiative as officers, or at least not under or because of any order or direction of the mayor, or other civil authority; that the evidence shows that it cannot be claimed by the insurance company that any order to set the fire came from any other than two sources, namely, from the Commonwealth’s attorney, as speaking for the mayor and from the mayor. The weight of the evidence is overwhelming in exclusion of the hypothesis that the order of the Commonwealth’s attorney caused the fire to be set out. And as to the order of the mayor, if he gave any order or direction for firing the building he did not give it to the officers who set the fire; and it was not communicated to them as
The clause in the policy on which the insurance company relies to release it from liability in this case, so far as material, is as follows:
“This company shall not be liable for loss caused directly or indirectly by * * riot * * or by order of any civil authority.”
The riot referred to is the common law offense of riot. To say the least on the subject, it is a matter of much doubt whether the action of the assembly of the people aforesaid constituted a riot. See 1 Bishop’s New Cr. Law (8th ed.), sec. 534; 2 Idem, sec. 1143; note to 94 Am. Dec. 136-7.
As said in 1 Bishop’s New Cr. Law, supra, giving Blackstone’s definition of the offense: “An unlawful assembly is the congregation of three or more persons to do some unlawful act; ‘as, to pull down enclosures, to destroy a warren, or the game therein;’ they parting ‘without doing it, or making any motion towards it.’ If, instead of their separating without action, they accomplished some object to the terror of the people, their offense becomes a riot.”
As said in 2 Bish. New Cr. Law, supra: “Kiot is such disorderly conduct in three or more persons, actually .accomplishing an object, as is calculated to terrify others,” —citing Hawkins, P. C., Coke’s Inst., and other authorities.
From the authorities on the subject there' seem to be two features which are essential to constitute a riot: (1) Either that the assembly of three or more persons must be for an unlawful purpose, or (2) that the action of the assembly
A fortiori the conduct of the two police officers aforesaid did not constitute a riot.
If the insurance company wished to exclude its liability in a case such as that before us-of a fire set out by ministerial officers in order to effect the capture of a fugitive from justice, suitable language to cover such an exception' from liability should have been used in the policy of - -insurance. While the courts will give a fair and reasonable construction to insurance contracts, as to other contracts, still, as is well settled, the form of insurance contracts being chosen by the insurance companies themselves, they are to be strongly construed against them where the meaning of the language is in any doubt; and, as these companies do the business for compensation, the meaning of words relied on to exempt them from liability, after they have collected the compensation, should be plainly to that effect before the courts should give that effect to the words of the contract. And I do not think that it is plain that the words of the exception clause of the policy aforesaid with reference to “loss caused directly or indirectly by * * riot,” cover the case of a fire set out as was the fire in the instant cáse.
In the cases of Lycoming Ins. Co. v. Schwenk, 95 Pa. 89" court="Pa." date_filed="1880-06-14" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/lycoming-fire-insurance-v-schwenk-6236621?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6236621">95 Pa. 89, 40 Am. Rep. 629; Luckett, etc., Tobacco Co. v. Globe Ins. Co. (C. C.), 171 F. 147" court="None" date_filed="1908-12-22" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/luckett-wake-tobacco-co-v-globe--rutgers-fire-ins-9304224?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="9304224">171 Fed. 147, and Blakeman v. Wichita, 93 Kan. 444" court="Kan." date_filed="1914-12-12" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/blakeman-v-city-of-wichita-7902244?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="7902244">93 Kan. 444, 144 Pac. 816, L. R. A. 1915C, 578, Anno. Cas. 1916D,
As to the fire being set out “by order of any civil- authority.” Instruction No. 6 given for the defendant submitted that question of fact to the jury in so far as any order of the mayor is concerned. Not being excepted to, that instruction is the law of the case, even if erroneous. R. & D. R. Co. v. Medley, 75 Va. 499. The jury by their verdict, in accordance with this instruction and not in opposition tó it, found against the insurance company on this issue of fact. As aforesaid, the evidence, as I think, was clearly in accord with this finding, so that the verdict should not be disturbed. However, had the verdict in such case been in opposition to the instruction, under the doctrine of the. Medley Case just cited, it should not be disturbed.