Hardin Bag Burlap v. Fidelity Guaranty Fire Corp.

We have been afforded the benefit of able argument and re-argument by learned and astute counsel in this case.

There are, admittedly, only two questions presented, — that of, first, the ambiguity of the "Hazards not Covered" clause of the policy, and, secondly the proximate cause of the loss suffered by the insured.

On a reading of the brief submitted by counsel for the defendant, it will be noted that he concedes, as indeed he must, the ambiguity of the "Hazards not Covered" clause, for he therein states:

"If the `Hazards not Covered' clause `must be ignored', then regardless of whether it…