What is the burden of proof for an insurance company to prove that the fall preceded the fire?

The trial judge charged the jury that the burden of proof rested upon the defendant (the insurance company) to show by a preponderance of evidence that 'the fall preceded the fire'; that 'this building did not fall as the result of fire.' Exceptions to the charge and to refusals to charge the converse of this proposition sufficiently present the question of correctness of this ruling. It will not be necessary to repeat the text either of the charge or of the requests. The trial judge construed the clause referring to a fall of the building as a proviso or condition subsequent defeating any claim of the insured. If it be such, no one here disputes the proposition that the burden of proving the happening of the subsequent condition would rest upon the insurer. The defendant, however, contends that the clause is an exception to the general liability assumed by the insurance company, and that, therefore, it was for the insured to show that the loss did not come within the terms of the exception. The general rule is well expressed by Earl, J., in Slocovich v. Insurance Co., 108 N.Y. 56, 14 N.E. 802: