226 DURATION OF THE FIRE POLICY. 



ning. But loss by being torn to pieces by lightning, without 

 combustion, is not.(a) 



Frequently, in American policies, and in some British 

 policies also, there is what is called a " lightning clause," in 

 which the insurer takes the risk of animals being struck by 

 lightning. This risk is entirely separate from fire insurance ; 

 it is sometimes found in fire policies, but more frequently 

 in horse and other live stock policies, which do not cover 

 fire.(6) 



Where a horse, described as in a certain barn, was 

 insured, the policy containing a lightning clause, and the 

 horse was struck at pasture, the company were held liable ; 

 (c) and where a clause ran " on horses and colts while in 

 barn, and by lightning only when in use, or running in 

 pasture or yard on his farm, in the town of L.," it was held 

 not limited to the farm occupied by the plaintiff at the date 

 of the issue of the policy, but extended to any place in the 

 town.(cZ) 



180. Duration of the Fire Policy.— The eSicacy of the 

 policy is limited to a certain day ; and the whole of the last 

 day is covered when mentioned in the policy.(e) Where a 

 certain number of days (generally fifteen) is added, within 

 which it is declared the policy shall subsist on payment of 

 the premium, it has been held that this only gives an option 

 to the insured to continue the insurance by pa3-ing the 

 premium within the fifteen days, notwithstanding any inter- 

 vening loss, provided the insurance company had not already 

 given notice that they would not renew the contract.(/) 



(a) Hillier v. Allegheny, <£-c., Co., 1846, 45 Am. D. 656, collecting the American 

 authorities upon what is included in loss by fire. See also May, § 406. 



(h) § 188. 



(c) Haws V. Philadelphia Fire Association, 114 Pa. St. 431, cited in Lawson's 

 Rights, Remedies, and Practice, v. § 2206. 



(fZ) Borirjht V. Springfield, ttr.. Insurance Co., 34 Minn, 352, cited in Lawson, 

 ut sup. 



(c) Isaacs v. Royal Insurance Co., 1870, L.R. 5 Ex. 296. 



(/) Tarleten v. Staneforih, 1796, 1 B. and P. 471 ; Salvin v. James, 1805, 

 6 East, 571. 



