be something more than proof that there was a possibility that the owner might physically have been able to set off the fire.


51
Powell v. Merrimack Mutual Fire Insurance Company, 667 F.2d 26, 29 (11th Cir.1982).


52
There was no evidence placing either of the Arms at or near the scene of the fire.  The only evidence was their testimony that they were at Jonesboro, Tennessee, 50 miles away.  Mr. Arms testified that when he came to the home the day following the first fire, he observed that the garage door in the rear of the house was not fastened.  The door had been padlocked, but the hinge that held the padlock had been pried loose from the door.  He also testified on cross-examination that he askeda new fire insurance policy for an amount substantially greater than previous policies and that she had moved many of her appliances and belongings out of the home shortly before the fire.1


62
As stated in the court's opinion, the district judge in Goodwin v. Maryland Casualty Company, 233 F.Supp. 81, 83 (E.D.Okla.1964), states that "motive plus the incendiary origin of the fire, would, in the absence of believable rebuttal evidence, be sufficient to sustain the affirmative defense [of arson]."  However, the statement is made in the context of the trial judge's opinion in a non-jury case in which he held that the defense of arson had not been established.


63
The fact that there were two fires in the instant case comes the closest to an additional circumstance beyond motive