Plaintiff's merchandise was insured by defendant against direct loss or damage caused by fire. In 1937 the Ohio River overflowed its banks and water entered the premises in which the assured stored his goods. While the employees of the assured were removing the goods to higher floors for protection against the flood, a near-by gasoline tank exploded and started a fire some five hundred yards from the building. The fire threatened destruction to the whole area, and in an effort to prevent this ruin, the fire department ordered the employees to quit their work because of the possible necessity of having to dynamite the building and because of the imminent peril of the workers should the structure catch fire. As a result the insured merchandise was damaged by the flood waters though the building did not catch fire. Held, the fire was the proximate cause of the loss and the assured could recover under the policy. Princess Garment Co. v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. of San Francisco, (C. C. A. 6th, 1940) 115 F. (2d) 380.
Michigan Law Review,
INSURANCE - FIRE INSURANCE - WHAT IS A FIRE LOSS,
Mich. L. Rev.
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol39/iss8/12