Daniels

Plaintiffs brought this action for a loss which they allege was covered by the extended coverage rider on a fire insurance policy issued by the defendant through its agent.

The amount of the loss is not in dispute.

Two questions of fact are presented to me for decision as follows:

1. Was the loss caused by an explosion within the meaning of the extended coverage rider attached to the insurance policy?

2. Did the insurer waive the requirement of submitting proof of loss within sixty days as provided by the policy?

The facts concerning the explosion feature are somewhat similar to Olds Seed Co. v. Commercial Union Assurance Co., 7 Cir., 179 F.2d 472 . The complaint in this action is modeled after the Olds case.

The determination of the cause of the breaking of the water pipe in question resulted in a battle of the experts. Naturally, the experts for the plaintiffs held that the break was due to internal pressure, while, as expected, the experts for the defendant claimed the break was caused by external stress based upon varying theories.

There are certain facts that convince me the break in the water pipe was due to an explosion or rupture caused by internal pressure. It is…