Policies of fire insurance frequently contain provisions that the policy shall be avoided by any subsequent increase of risk; and full effect is given to such a provision.1 A change in the purpose for which a manufacturing establishment is used, making the risk more hazardous, avoids the policy under such a condition.2 Such a condition, however, is construed strictly.3 Unless the condition is expressly worded so as to terminate the policy absolutely, it does not apply to a temporary increase of risk which terminated before the loss took place.4 It does not apply to necessary repairs,5 such as the use of gasoline for removing rust from machinery.6 It does not apply where an unsuccessful attempt has been made by an unknown person to burn an insured building, since it can not fairly be presumed that such attempt will be repeated.7 If a policy of insurance is issued upon personal property to cover it wherever it may be located, the shipment of such property to another place which in itself is not especially dangerous, is not an increase of risk.8

1 Sierra Milling, Smelting & Mining Co. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 76 Cal. 235, 18 Pac. 267 (obiter, as condition was not broken).

2 Port Blakely Mill Co. v. Springfield F. & M. Ins. Co., 59 Wash. 501, 28 L. R. A. (N.S.) 593, 110 Pac. 36 [rehearing of, 56 Wash. 681, 106 Pac. 1941.

3 Port Blakely Mill Co. v. Springfield F. & M. Ins. Co., 59 Wash. 501, 28 L. R. A. (N.S.) 593, 110 Pac. 36 [rehearing of, 56 Wash. 681, 106 Pac. 194].

4 Port Blakely Mill Co. v. Springfield F. & M. Ins. Co., 59 Wash. 501, 23 L. P. A. (N.S.) 593, 110 Pac. 36 [rehearing of, 56 Wash. 6S1, 106 Pac. 194].

5 Whealton Packing Co. v. Aetna Ins. Co., 185 Fed. 108, 34 L. R. A. (N.S.) 563.

6 Whealton Packing Co. v. Aetna Ins. Co., 185 Fed. 108, 34 L. R. A. (N.S.) 563.

1 Harris v. Columbiana Mutual Ins. Co., 4 O. S. 286; Progress Spinning & Knitting Mills Co. v. Southern National Ins. Co., 42 Utah, 263, 45 L. R-A. (N.S.) 122, 130 Pac. 63.

2 Progress Spinning & Knitting Mills Co. v. Southern National Ins. Co., 42 Utah, 263, 45 L. R. A. (N.S.) 122, 130 Pac. 63.

3 Nash v. American Ins. Co., - Ia. - , 174 N. W. 378; Dabney v. Connecticut Fire Ins. Co., 104 Kan. 796, 180 Pac. 784; Sumter Tobacco Warehouse Co. v. Phoenix Assurance Co., 76 S. Car. 76, 10 L. R. A. (N.S.) 736, 56 S. E. 654; Farmers' State Bank v. Tri-State Mut. Grain Dealers' Fire Ins. Co., - S. D. - , 170 N. W. 638; Williamsburg City F. Ins. Co. v. Weeks Drug Co., 103 Tex. 608, 31 L. R. A. (N.S.) 603, 132 S. W. 121.

It applies only to changes in the property itself. Germania Insurance Co. v. Werner, 76 O. S. 543, 81 N. E. 980.

Whether risk is increased is a question of fact. Walradts v. Ins. Co., 136 N. Y. 375, 32 N. E. 1063.