356 " ' BOARD OF AGRICULTURE. 



President Joues: Suppose you have a member in your company who 

 has a good brick building covered with a metal roof, with every other 

 known device for safety against fire, but he does not see fit to rod his 

 buildings. A neighbor of his may liave a frame building with an old 

 shingle roof, but has all his buildings rodded. Would you give him the 

 benefit of the lower rate of insurance and not classify the other man or 

 give him any benefit for his better protected buildings? If you do that, 

 do you think the man with the brick building will be satisfied with the 

 ruling of your company? 



Dr. Saunders: He will be after he understands the conditions. 1 

 think fully 50 per cent, of the losses our company has sustained have been 

 from lightning. While a dilapidated house may be more subject to fire 

 than a well protected one, it is better protected against lightning if it is 

 rodded. If a brick building has a metal roof we make a reduction in the 

 assessment. We make a classification there as well as in the case of the 

 rodded building. We simply put the man with the frame building that is 

 rodded on the same footing with the man whose house is of brick with a 

 metal roof. 



Mr. Kirkman: We only give the benefit on brick or stone buildings 

 with slate or metal roofs. If a frame building has a slate or metal roof 

 it is in the first class. 



Mr. Dunfee: The past summer we suffered very little from losses 

 by lightning. Now in making the assessment if we charge the fellows 

 with rodded buildings less than the other we are not doing them justice 

 when all the losses occurred by fire. 



Mr. Barrett: In the early part of the year we can not tell whether 

 the losses will be from fire or lightning. I think my books Avill sliow that 

 in the past we have paid out two dollars for losses by lightning to one for 

 losses by fire. 



Mr. Forbes: Suppose, for the sake of argument, that all your build- 

 ings were rodded and you never had any losses bj' lightning, you will have 

 no insurance to pay for that cause. It is a plain proposition that the men 

 who have rods on their buildings and have no losses by lightning ought 

 to pay less, because there is no hazard tliere. We should pay insurance 

 according to the hazard. If it is demonstrated that by the use of a good 

 lightning rod the danger of loss by lightning is eliminated, the man who 

 has rodded buildings should not be expected to p;iy as large assessments 

 as the men who have no rods on their buildings. 



Mr. Tufts: (Jur company has been running for thirty years and I do 

 not think our losses by lightning amount to $300. 1 don't say that is be- 

 cause we all have lightning rods. We have not made a classification. 



