Your business was lost in the 1906 earthquake, the insurance company won’t pay, yet everyone yuks it up in court recounting the funny things they did “getting clear of debris or in steadying their nerves after the fright.” They sound like the very sort of witnesses you want for reliable testimony: People who were scared senseless or immediately got drunk.

The court appearances in early 1908 were the the start of a long legal battle for R. C. Moodey, whose shoe store on Fourth street was destroyed by the fire that followed the quake. It was important for Moodey to prove that his merchandise was burned before the building finally collapsed; his insurance policy had a “fallen-building” clause that did not cover damage caused by earthquakes. Unique among all insurers, the Connecticut Fire Insurance Company refused to pay any Santa Rosa losses, and were sued in 1908 by five policy holders, including Moodey. The company lost each case, but their appeals slithered through the courts for years; the California Supreme Court in Sept. 1911 finally decided conclusively in Moodey’s favor, over five years after the disaster.

Much of the Connecticut Fire Insurance Company’s defense rested on proving that a “material portion” of a building had collapsed before the fire. A glimpse of how finely those legal hairs were split can be found in the questions put to the jury in another case a few weeks later.

Moodey’s shoe store was at 539 Fourth street, currently the location of a hair salon. Between there and the building next door (now the address of Caffe Portofino) was the stairway to the Princess lodging house, where bones and ashes were found four days after the quake. It was first reported to be the remains of a man, woman, and child, yet the coroner issued a death certificate for a single unknown person. This discrepancy is one of several mysteries about the true earthquake body count.

(RIGHT: 1908 ad for R. C. Moodey’s post-quake store)

MANY WITNESSES TELL OF APRIL 18
Trial of the Moodey–Connecticut Suit is Resumed Before Judge Denny and Jury Wednesday

The tale of that eventful morning, April 18, 1906, was again rehearsed, at least portions of it were, in Judge Denny’s Department of the Superior Court on Wednesday at the trial of the suit brought by R. C. Moodey against the Connecticut Fire Insurance Company to recover $500, the insurance he carried in the Company and which account the Company refused to settle.

Time has worn on but the reminiscences related on the witness stand on Wednesday served in a measure to recall some of the scenes on the morning when man’s thought and vision ran wild. There was so much to see and hear then. The proceedings in court often during the day lent a touch of the humorous in the testimony of some of the witness while describing some little personal stunt executed to getting clear of debris or in steadying their nerves after the fright…among the witnesses were Fire Chief Frank Muther, Ed M. Faught, the Rev. A. B. Patten, John Halson, John Brobeck, J. A. White, W. J. Doggett, M. G. Hall, Ed Rohrer, W. H. Bailey, H. F. Wilson and J. H. Fowler. After hearing these men a brief recess was taken, the courtroom being stuffy, and the questioning arduous work. The witnesses in the main were those who could describe the appearance of the Moodey building and other buildings in the vicinity after the quake…

– Press Democrat, February 27, 1908

CONNECTICUT INSURANCE COMPANY LOSES AGAIN
Jury Gives Major Fountain Verdict Last Night

The Connecticut Fire Insurance Company lost again in the Superior Court of this county last night. The jury in the suit of O. Fountain against the Company found for the plaintiff for the full amount claimed $1,116.66. A few weeks ago R. C. Moodey who sued the company got a verdict in full for the amount of his policy. There are still three suits against the concern.

The verdict was returned into court at nine o’clock last night after the jury had been out deliberating since before three in the afternoon. It seems that the delay in the jury room was not over the finding of the verdict but in the answering of a number of interrogatories which are mentioned below.

[..]

Question: Did the building described in the policy herein sued on and mentioned by the witness fall as a whole prior to its destruction by fire from a cause other than fire?

Answer: No.

Question: Did a part or parts of the building described in the policy hereing sued on and mentioned by the witness fall prior to the destruction of said building by fire from a cause other than fire?

Answer: Yes.

Question: Did a material part or parts of the building described in the policy herein sued on and mentioned by the witness fall prior to the destruction of said building by fire from a cause other than fire?

Answer: No.

Question: Did a substantial part or parts of the building described in the policy herein sued on and mentioned by the witnesses fail prior to the destruction of said building by fire from a cause other than fire?

Answer: No.

Question: Did a trivial or inconsiderable part or parts of the building described in the policy herein sued on and mentioned by the witnesses fail prior to the destruction of said building by fire from a cause other than fire?

Answer: Yes.

Question: If you find if a part or parts of said building described in the policy herein sued on and mentioned by the witnesses fell prior to the destruction of said building or from a cause other than fire, was the usefulness of said building for the purpose for which it was constructed impaired by reason of the said falling?

Answer: Don’t Know.

Question: If you find if a part or parts of said building described in the policy herein sued on and mentioned by the witnesses fell prior to the burning of said building and from a cause other than fire, state whether or not the falling of such part or parts exposed the interior of said building or its contents to the inclemency of the weather?

Answer: Don’t Know.

Question: Did a substantial or material part of said building described in the policy sued on and mentioned by the witnesses fail from a cause other than fire prior to the burning of the stock of goods of plaintiffs contained in said building and insured under said policy?

Answer: No.

Question: If you find that any part or parts of said building described in the policy sued on and mentioned by the witnesses fell prior to the burning and from a cause other than fire, state whether such falling occurred before the said goods insured were attacked by fire.

Answer: Don’t Know.

After Clerk Jack Ford had read the verdict and the queries and answers Attorney Plaw [for the insurance company] … asked the court to order the jury to give a definite answer to those queries to which they had relied “don’t know.” Judge Seawell declined to do so and Plaw took an exception to the Court’s ruling…

– Press Democrat, April 11, 1908

Read More

The first anniversary of the 1906 Santa Rosa earthquake passed with little notice, except for a souvenir section in the Press Democrat, offering a facsimile of their two-page letterpress edition that appeared the day after the disaster. The grand speeches would have to wait until 1908, with the laying of the new court house cornerstone.

There was, however, an all-time great prank that day, and a couple of months later the City Council finally commissioned the gravestone for the unknown dead, bringing to a close the business of the earthquake fund committee. Unfortunately, this also closed the door on any hope that the committee might produce a complete account of all those killed in the tragedy.

THE PAST AND THE FUTURE

While remarkable activity has been displayed here during the past year is the work of rebuilding, the year to come promises to show even more satisfactory results. The coming year will see the completion of most of the larger and more pretentious buildings now under way, and also the beginning of many others. Among the former may be mentioned the New Occidental and The Overton hotels, the Masonic Temple, the Santa Rosa and Exchange Banks, the Shea and the Carithers blocks; while the latter list will include the new Government postoffice, the county court house, the Odd Fellows building and the Brush-Keegan and Todd blocks, in addition to several others. When one stops to consider that just a year ago today the entire business portion of Santa Rosa was mass of ruins, the great work that has been accomplished during the past twelve months appears little less than marvelous. But before another year has been around we will have a “New Santa Rosa” in fact as well as in name and will be a far larger and finer city than before.

– Press Democrat editorial, April 18, 1907

The Souvenir Edition

Thursday the Santa Rosa Press Democrat came out with ten pages, two pages being replete with half tones and descriptive matter telling of the progress made by the City of Roses since the fire and earthquake of a year ago. The paper also contained a souvenir in the form of a reproduction of the Press Democrat on the day following the quake, April 19th. That issue was of but two pages, three columns to the page, and contained a list of the dead and injured, as well as other distressing news of the disaster. – Cloverdale Reveille.

– Press Democrat, April 21, 1907

MONUMENT OVER THE GRAVES

At the meeting of the Council last night the special committee were empowered to have a monument erected over the last place of the unknown dead, victims who perished in the disaster of April, 1906, and whose remains repose in a large grave in the local cemetery. A neat monument will be set up and will have a concrete base that will cover the entire top of the grave, with a coping around it. The monument and coping will cost $375. Kinslow Brothers will do the work.

– Press Democrat, June 19, 1907

Read More

A year after the 1906 Santa Rosa earthquake, the insurance situation was turning ugly. As earlier discussed here, fewer than ten companies paid their losses in full, some insurers declaring bankruptcy to avoid paying a cent, and some companies dragging their heels for months before striking deals to pay a fraction of what was really due. But apparently only the Connecticut Fire Insurance Company truly played hardball, inviting some policy holders to sue them.

At least two Santa Rosa claims slogged through the courts for five years past the disaster – yet the record shows that the firm was highly esteemed for fairness after the San Francisco earthquake. The claims here hardly seem unique; the cases that reached the California Supreme Court both concerned disputes over whether the goods in a store were destroyed by fire in the moments before or after the building collapsed, a situation that the insurance companies surely faced in San Francisco as well.

So why did Connecticut Fire dig in over Santa Rosa’s claims? Maybe because they could. A report on San Francisco insurance settlements prepared for the SF Chamber of Commerce in November, 1906 (PDF) was considered the final word on the subject, and it praised Connecticut Fire as one of the very few “dollar-for-dollar” companies. There was also scant media attention given to the handful of still-unresolved Santa Rosa cases. Between 1907 and 1912, I can find only five small items in major California papers about those ongoing legal battles.

A few weeks after the quake, Connecticut Fire Insurance Company president John D. Browne proclaimed, “All clearly Total Losses must be paid in full. We must retain our reputation for square dealing.” They did retain their reputation, but the courts had other views about their “square deals;” it appears that the company lost every appeal.

CONNECTICUT REFUSES TO PAY ITS SANTA ROSA LOSSES

Five suits were commenced in the Superior Court of this county on Wednesday against the Connecticut Fire Insurance Company of Hartford, the company who refused to pay its losses in Santa Rosa at the time of the great fire last April. These are the first suits of like nature to be commenced in Santa Rosa.

The plaintiffs in the suits against the Connecticut and the amounts claimed are Naomi E. Davis, as executrix of the estate of H. S. Davis, $1,000; Max Rosenberg, $1,999; Frank C. Loomis, $1,000; O. Fountain and Santa Rosa Savings Bank, $1,000; R. C. Moodey, $500.

The complaints recite that, the defendant company has refused to pay the claims made against it by the plaintiffs. The Hon. T. J. Geary is the attorney for all the plaintiffs.

– Press Democrat, April 4, 1907

MORE INSURANCE CLAIMS SETTLED
Trader’s of Chicago Pays 70 Cents on the Dollar and German National 50 Cents

Attorney Thomas J. Geary, who has had charge of most of the local insurance cases growing out of the great fire of last April, has succeeded in arranging a settlement of the claims owed here by the Trader’s of Chicago and German National Insurance companies. The former pays 70 cents and the latter 50 cents. Among those who held polices…

[..]

– Press Democrat, April 10, 1907

Read More