Issue: Under a Homeowners policy, could the insureds recover from the company for the damage to their home which supposedly resulted from blasting operations on a nearby highway which was under construction?

Judgment: The insureds and their witnesses testified that the damage to the house, during the period of the blasting operations on the nearby highway, consisted of cracking of plaster, foundation and mortar; leaking of the roof; settling of the foundation; warping of floors; and sticking of doors. They testified that all the damage occurred during the three months when the blasting operations were underway on the highway.

They further testified that their home had been inundated (in the past) by a flood, but all the flood damage had been repaired prior to the present damage. Their home was about 3,700 feet from the scene of the blasting.

The company denied liability on the grounds that the possibility of damage from the blasting was too remote to sustain the verdict for *$2,500 which had been entered in the trial court and, further, that the damages were excessive, and that any damage was caused by the negligence of a deceased contractor.

The blasting operations were conducted by the contracting company and by a contractor, now deceased. An architect testified for the defendants that the blasting could not have caused the damage claimed because of the distance involved, and his evidence was corroborated in part by a carpenter. There was also conflicting testimony showing negligence on the part of the contractor.

The higher court ruled that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict of the jury; therefore the judgment in favor of the insureds was affirmed.

* (Editor’s note, this amount would equate to roughly $14,000 in current dollars, not adjusting for increased construction and labor costs)

Security Fire & Indemnity Co. vs. Hughes -Kentucky Court of Appeals of Ohio – October 9, 1964 – Insurance Law Journal, Vol 502 Page 690 (Rough Notes Magazine, March, 1965)