According to H. 2(6A), “fire insurance business” means the business enterprise of altering, otherwise than incidentally to some other class of insurance business, contracts of insurance against loss by or incidental to fireplace or other occurrence, customarily integrated among the risks covered by insurance against in fire insurance business.
According to Halsbury, this is a contract of insurance by which the insurer confirms for consideration to indemnify the assured up to a certain extent and subject to certain conditions and conditions against loss or damage by open fire, which may happen to the property of the assured during a specific period. Thus, fire insurance is a contract where the person, seeking insurance safety, enters into a agreement with the insurer to indemnify him against reduction of property by or incidental to fire or lightning, explosion etc. This specific policy is designed to insure one’s property and other items from reduction occurring due to complete or partial damage by fire.
There is no statutory enactment governing fireplace insurance, as in the case of marine insurance coverage which is regulated by the Indian Marine Insurance policy Act, 1963. the Native indian Insurance Act, 1938 mainly dealt with regulation of insurance business as such and not with any general or special principles of the law relevant fire of other insurance contracts. So also the Common Insurance Expert Finance Business (Nationalization) Act, 1872. in the lack of any legislative enactment on the subject, the courts in India have in working with the topic of fire insurance have relied so far on contencioso decisions of Courts and opinions of English Jurists.
In identifying the significance of property damaged or destroyed by fire for the purpose of indemnity under a policy of fire insurance policy, it was the value of the home to the insured, that has been to be measured. Prima facie that value was measured by reference of the market value of the property before and after the loss. However such method of assessment was not applicable in instances where the market value did not represent the real value of the property to the insured, as the location where the property was utilized by the insured as a home or, for carrying business. In such cases, the measure of indemnity was the price tag on reinstatement. In the case of Lucas versus. New Zealand Insurance Co. Ltd.1 the location where the insured property was purchased and held as an income-producing investment, and therefore the court held that the proper measure of indemnity for damage to the property by fireplace was the expense of reinstatement.
Typically the date of conclusion of a contract of insurance policy is issuance of the policy is different from the acceptance or presumption of risk. Section 64-VB only lays down commonly that the insurer are not able to assume risk prior to the date of invoice of premium. Rule 54.99 of the Insurance Regulations, 1939 speaks about progress payment of premiums consideringg sub section (! ) of Section 64 VB which allows the insurer to assume the risk from the date onwards. When the proposer did not desire a particular day, it was possible for the proposer to negotiate with insurer about that phrase. Precisely, therefore the Pinnacle Court has said that final acceptance is that of the assured and also the insurer depends simply along the way in which negotiations for insurance have progressed. Though the following are risks which appear to have covered Fire Insurance plan but are not totally protected under the Policy.