Full effect is given to a condition in a policy of fire insurance to the effect that the policy shall terminate if the insured premises become vacant.1 Since a provision of this sort may be highly material, it is probably not construed as strictly as some of the other conditions for avoiding liability.2 If no one lives in the house, it is vacant within the meaning of this provision, although the occupant is about the premises frequently,3 or although goods are stored therein.4 A statute which provides that an insurance company must pay loss by fire in the absence of a change increasing the risk without the consent of the insurer, does not apply to a condition with reference to vacancy.5 Such a condition applies to a vacancy caused by a fire which partially destroys the building which is insured,6 even though the insured has reserved an option to repair or rebuild,7 at least if he has not exercised such option. Such provisions, however, are not favored in construction.8 If the language of the policy permits, a condition with reference to vacancy will be construed as suspending the policy, while the premises are vacant, so that the policy revives when the premises are again occupied.9 Such a condition does not apply where the tenants occupy the building during each night, although most of the furniture has been removed;10 nor does it apply where the tenant has left the premises without notice to the owner, and the owner has had no reasonable opportunity of learning of the vacancy.11 A provision to the effect that vacancies shall be reported at certain specified intervals, does not apply where a permit for vacancy has issued.12 If buildings and personal property are valued separately, a condition with reference to the continued operation of the mill will be regarded as applying only to the mill.13 A condition against vacancy is independent of a condition against increase of risk;14 where both conditions are found in the same policy, and breach of the condition against vacancy is shown, it is not necessary to show that it resulted in an increase of risk.15

South Dakota. Farmers9 State Bank v. Tri-State Mat. Grain Dealers' Fire Ins Co., - S. D. -, 170 N. W. 638.

Wisconsin. Clute v. Clintonville Mut. F. Ins Co., 144 Wis. 638, 32 L. R. A. (N.S.) 240, 129. N W. 661.

4 McClure v. Mutual F. Ins. Co., 242 Pa, St. 59, 48 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1221, 88 Atl. 921.

5 Smith v. German Ins. Co., 107 Mich. 270, 30 L. R. A. 368, 65 N. W. 236; Garrebrant v. Continential Ins. Co., 75 N. J. L. 577, 12 L. R. A. (N.S.) 443, 67 Atl. 90; Lebanon County v. Franklin Fire Ins. Co., 237 Pa. St. 360, 44 L. R. A. (N.S.) 148, 85 Atl. 419.

The use of a gasoline torch to remove paint is a breach of condition if it increases the risk. Rockland First Congregational Church v. Holy-oke Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 158 Mass. 475, 35 Am. St. Rep. 508, 19 L. R. A. 587, 33 N. E. 572.

6 Farmers' State Bank v. Tri-State Mut. Grain Dealers' Fire Ins. Co., - S. D. -, 170 N. W. 638.

7 Arnold v. American Ins. Co., 148 Cal. 660, 25 L. R. A. (N.S.) 6, 84 Pac 182.

8 Home Ins. Co. v. Bridges, 172 Ky. 161, L. R. A. 1917C, 276, 189 S. W. 6.

9 Thompson v. Equity Fire Ins. Co., [1910] A. C. 592.

10 McClure v. Mutual F. Ins. Co., 242 Pa. St. 59, 48 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1221, 88 Atl. 921.

11 Clute v. Clintonville Mut. F. Ins. Co., 144 Wis. 638, 32 L. R. A. (N.S.) 240, 129 N. W. 661.

12 Edwards v. Farmers' Mut. Ins. Asso., 128 Ga. 353, 12 L. R. A. (N.S.) 484, 57 S. E. 707.

1 United States. Connecticut F. Ins. Co. v. Buchanan, 141 Fed. 877, 4 L. R. A. (N.S.) 758.

Iowa. Baldwin v. German Ins. Co., 105 Ia. 379, 75 N. W. 326.

Maine. Knowlton v. Patrons' Androscoggin Mut. F. Ins. Co., 100 Me. 481, 2 L.R.A. (N.S.) 517, 62 Atl. 289.

Nebraska. Schmidt v. Williamsburg City F. Ins. Co., 95 Neb. 43, 51 L. R. A. (N.S.) 261. 144 N. W. 1044.

New Jersey. Kupfersmith v. Delaware Ins. Co., 84 N. J. L. 271, 45 L. R. A. (N.S.) 847, 86 Atl 399.

Ohio. Germania F. Ins. Co. v. Werner, 76 O. S. 643, 12 L. R. A. (N.S.) 456, 81 N. E. 080.

2 For construction of such a provision, see Connecticut F. Ins. Co. v. Buchanan, 141 Fed. 877, 4 L. R. A. (N.S.) 758; Knowlton v. Patrons' Androscoggin Mut. F. Ins. Co., 100 Me. 481, 2 L. R. A. (N.S.) 517, 62 Atl 289; Germania F. Ins. Co. v. Werner, 76 O. 8. 643, 12 L. R. A. (N.S.) 456, 81 N. . 980.

3 Knowlton v. Patrons' Androscoggin Mut. F. Ins. Co., 100 Me. 481, 2 L. R. A. . (N.S) 517, 62 Atl 289.

4 Connecticut F. Ins. Co. v. Buchanan, 141 Fed. 877, 4 L. R. A. (N.S.) 758.

5 Germania F. Ins. Co. v. Werner, 76 O. S. 643, 12 L. R. A. (N.S.) 456, 81 N. E. 980.

6 Kupfersmith v. Delaware Ins. Co., 84 N. J. L. 271, 45 L. R. A. (N.S.) 847, 86 Atl 399.

7 Kupfersmith v. Delaware Ins. Co., 84 N. J. L. 271, 46 L. R. A. (N.8.) 847, 86 Atl. 399.

8Arkansas. Home Ins. Co. v. North Little Rock Ice & E. Co., 86 Ark. 538, 23 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1201, III S. W. 994.

Colorado. National Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Duncan, 44 Colo. 472, 98 Pac. 634 [sub nomine, Duncan v. National Fire Ins. Co., 20 L. R. A. (N.S.) 340].

Indiana, Ohio Farmers' Ins. Co. v. Vogel, 166 Ind. 239, 3 L. R. A. (N.S.) 966, 76 N. E. 977.

Mississippi. Insurance Co. v. Pitts, 88 Miss. 587, 7 L. R. A. (N.S) 627, 41 So. 5.

South Dakota. Seubert v. Fidelity-Phenix Ins. Co., 29 S. D. 261, 40 L. R. A. (N.S.) 58 136 N. W. 103.

West Virginia. Bond v. National Fire Ins. Co., - W. Va. -, 97 8. E. 692.

9 Insurance Co. v. Pitts, 88 Miss. 687, 7 L. R. A. (N.S.) 627, 41 So. 5.

10 Seubert v. Fidelity-Phenix Ins. Co., 29 S. D. 261, 40 L. R. A. (N.S.) 68, 136 N. W. 108.