SUPREME COURT.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 2168, 5 June 1914, Page 4

SUPREME COURT.

IMPORTANT INSURANCE CLAIM INTERESTING PHASES. ANTE-DATED RENEWAL RECEIPT A claim for £263 lGs. 7d.. alleged to bo payable under an insurance policy, was iprose'cutc'd .iu the Supremo Court yesterday before Mr. Justice Hosking, and a, jury of four. The plaintiff was Fred Hague, carrier, of Utiku, and defendant was the Norwich and London accident Insurance Association.

The daim was for a refund of a sum .of £150 paid under an award of tho '■ Arbitration Court to the widow of a workman who had been employed by plaintiff, and also medical and funeral expenses, totalling £203 IBs. 7d. in all. The question to be determined was whether; a policy issued by the Norwich and London Accident Insurance AssociaI , U / e " e "' c(l - Tllc Proceedings disclosed that tho assooiation's district manager at Wanganui had written to plaintiff promising to hold him covered. An accident-happened to one of plaintilt s workmen, and plaintiff then interviewed the association's district manager at Wanganui, who told him tliat lie was covered and issued a renewal receipt. At tho request of thedistrict manager, the widow's claim was Kent to him to be dealt with bv the association's solicitors, but. after "about a lortinglit, it was returned to plaintiff jvhq was informed that the policy had .been written off as lapsed. He widow's cairn against tho present plaintiff (Fred Hague) for £500 had been successful to tlio oxtent of £150.

Jho Insurance Company set up a wries of defences. ' In the first place tlioy pleaded that the policv had not been renewed; that if it had been the renewal did not cover, the accident; tliat tlio district manager had no authority to renow tlio policy; that tho plaintiff obtained the renewal receipt by Iratidiilent concealment, or collusion with tho district manager: and that notice of tho accident had not been given 111 writing to .the head ofllco of the association within seven davs of the accident, it being alleged that no other notice would do. Mr. O. 13. Collins, of Wanganui. appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. A. A. S Menteath appeared for defendant association.

Plaintiff's Evidenco. Fred-Hague, plaintiff, said at the time of the circumstances loading up to t-ho > present, action he was a carrier in business at Utiku, near Tjiihane.Nnnd was also sub-agent for the Norwich and London Accident Insuranco: Company, the .defendants in this action, having been appointed 'by Mr... Thomson, tho company's district manager at Wanganui. A letter from tho district manager stated that on 'February' 18, 1913 he was in credit with the 'company to tie extent of 13s. lid. That was at the time his policy with tho company required renewing for tho then current year. In several letter's from Mr J liomsou regarding insurance, matters the latter mentioned that he was keening witness covered by insurance The accident out of which-the action arose Cnrlton one of witness's employees/ being killed) occurred 011 'January. 15, IOU. On January 20 witness went to , ornr." l and saw Mr. Tbom>iii, and asked if he was covered. vMr.vThomson replied that ho was aware'of what had occurred and, after further conversation with regard to the accident. Mr. Thomson said, "You are oif-ripM; we Will see you through this." '"Witness pressed Mr. Thomson to give him his insurnnco receipt. Eventuallv he gave Mr. Thomson a-eheouo for the insurance premium and Mr. Thomson pave him it receipt. On that samo occasion hotold Mr. Thomson that lie-was not point; to act further for the comnnny. At the time he was.not aware-that Cnrltin,]isd nnv denpudnnts. nnd-when Mr. Thomson wished him to fill in tlio form giving pHrticulnrs of Cn-rlton.'s accident ho demurred at first, beiiic of opinion that'all that would he entailed -would be_ funeral- expenses, and those he was quite willing to pny himself, as Carlton was a' personal friend, as well as an employee. Subsequently Mrs. Carlton sought compensation. Witnessforwarded her claim to t\\n insurance company, and eventually the company declined all responsibility, and returned' to witness the elinque for his insurance provniniyi ivhioh he had paid in January. Witness had been held personally liable and h<ul naid tho compensation awarded by the Co'irt to Mrs. Carlton and also costs.

To Mr. Mcntcntli: On .Ternary 21. after Carlton had been' killed, h" had sent in _ a statement, of. his employees and their wages. He wn.N aware that the insurance company asked for such Particulars, and in nrevicms years he had supplied them. He had a'porsonal accident in December last, and the claim oh account of it for £18 on the insurance cpmpnny was sent in in March.' 1914. They were, however, notified of the accident hy witnoss'.s wife prior to Christmas. .Ho paid;shout £2n2 in wages between February, 1913. and February, 1914. He had not told Mr. Thomson fas his reason for not renewing his insurance) that bo was employing very little labour. ' Ho did. however, tell Mr. Thomson that he was employing yerv little, labour, and aa\ he wai in credit 13s. and had commissions falli'mc due, ho was not worrying over paying the premium. In addition he had two years before adopted the principle of taking out a personal,policy. The only ■ notice he ftave the company regarding Carlton's death was his verh-il intimation to Mr. Thomson on Tuesday, Jnnuary 20. Ho told Mv.Thonison that Carlton was not married, and' that he thought that there wore no illegitimate children. Mr. Thomson did not say that company mi"ht, repudiate the .rlnim if it were for <\ bis'sum. but that if it were iV a small sum ho (Thomson) would seo him through.

other Evitlonca. Annie Hague, wife of tho plaintiff, gjr.-o evidence rogarditic the conimny being notified prior tp Christmas, 1(114, that Mr. Hague had mot with an accident and had been inenna'oitated for work for several weeks. She recollected having seen several letters from Mr. Thomson stating that ho was holding Mr. Hngno fully covered. Sim did not know of the importance of tho letters, and had burnod nt least, one of them. This closed tho plaintiff's case. Interesting Argument. Mr.-Menteath asked His Honour to nonsijit. plaintiff. There was no case to go to a jury, and there was no caso in law' on which plaintiff was entitled to succeed. There was a proposition in jaw that an agent had onlv the authority which his principals hold him out as having. The powers which the defendant association held Jlr. Thomson as having on their behalf ]I.is_ Honour: If you arc asking for a nonsuit it nnist rest on various matters put ill, and the, agent writes certain letters and professes to do certain acts. A man surely is nut required to go behind a renewal receipt to imniire into the authority of the agent before accepting it. Mr. "Menteath ; No, but it was submitted that when tho premium had remained unpaid for a period of 1] 1 months no agent in the • world oould

alter a los% had br-cii siiAtainwl {mvi-,-that loss by issuing « renewal receipt. Ills Honour: U msuwiw? coimsuntrvs insisted on prpiaiums Ijeins; paid »-ii tho due date, they would <lo"iv> iiusil'.pw It is customary f<:r renewal wu -.-.n to !*• issued. IlK! tptestinn k wlictltfr I can luliluei) from wliat is before, us wnv that the agent had atitlioritv to accent this premium after the tes'had occurred. ' Mr. .Menteath submitted t.ha* was not king to shov,- that tho district agent bad aity speeial jiowers other tliau tliosu which it was the insurance custom to ijive, to .vents Vet in this easo it wis. shown thoTaftor a ot £360 iifttf been incurred an agent could receive a. premium of ■?.{ is., and issne a renewal receipt dated back so as to ;j co Vf fr a toss, such as ws claiincd for w tho present wtian, and winch had occurred six days Ivefore tlio renewal •, M'us issued.

His Honour: Has an agent authority to cover ti.w n.ssured althoueh ho has not received tlj.o .premivvm P " Mr. Menteath: 1 submit not. H« wou d liavo had to send tlio block to his bead'office, .and ho would be immediately asked: "What about the pavment." So fang as he docs toot feue a printed i<xtn lie is acting within bin powers as an insurance agent. His Honour: I slioitld lw,ki that a district agent has authority to tell a man verbally he is covered; If a $$. trict agent can tell a man. he is covered tor Ins insurance, awl that jroos on for some time, and tlwm tan turn round and say: "It is not so; mv head effice ivi not have it," Ido not Know what will happen. You may he abfo to show that ins autlwrity is so liftiitod, but I have not got sns mstfiwtions «r ripßoiafci ment before me. I shall nssumo'until i you show me to the contrary, that a district agent has authority to keep a man insured.

• J i';\!-?.'f. ntca;t!i s « it! i* "-as kid ikiwri in M Gillivray, m "Insufanou Latt " page 189, that an apstft is not entitled to grant a renewal so as to eotor a loss which has already occurred. His Honour; In this case thwo certainly seems to have, boon a «vs-toiii" of cross accounts oi premiums a'tid" commissions. Mr. MontcatJi: TW district' agent paid tho sub-ajjaut's commissious out 0? Ins own commissions. His Honour: There is ro cvkk-ijce. that plaintiff hmv about t'.at. I wouM .not be prepared to .acce„t the point right off. but I will rcsan-o you leave to movo for a fioft-snffc at a stibsoouent BtaRC. Mr. Menteath tben oj»(flied the case for the defence, after wliioh the fnrtlirr hcarinn was adjouiacd mitil 10.o'clock this (Friday) mqnririg.

MESSENGER &. MOTOR, CLAIM FOR £260 DAMAGES FAILS. Tho action brought by L, J. Psrslee, 'telegraph messenger, agabut Herbert Leicester, motor agent, claiming £269 7s. damages for inhiries reeoived in a collision between defendant's motor-car and plaintiff's rttatar-cyelo, in Lower Cuba Street, on December .11. last, was continued in the Surwcroo Court yesterday before His Banou.r Mf. justice. Hoshing and a-jriry of four, Jfr. A. Dunn appeared for fflaintiff, and Mr. H. Buddie for defendant, Leonard James Parstoe, fatte' of the plaintiff, said that he was siting as guardian in this action. His s«i had been in the Hospital for soV-en or fightweeks, and he bad received a.bill for £10.75. This closed the case for plaintiff Herbert Leicester, riofemlant. miatrf "that, when ho started his enr, tlirrc was a van in front of, h'm standing to the kerb and aljoiit 25 yards away. He turned the car.svii faring aerate tic street, and ho then saw phimtiff.about 30 yards away, aad coming towards iiim on the left side of the street. Instead of tnrnine te pass behind tlw> motor-car, plaihtift wefti m .front, and came for the ear, strikiiisr t) lf , rnjlit-liatid dumlwmi in front, He had at no'time headed.his ear st»i<rl»t ™ the street. To do so Jih would hive had to.go in a circle. Whilst was 011 tho ground plaintiff said: "Oh, you nut on speed," aad- s-iihseoijentlv. w'h™ in the gara.ee, lie admitted that he- was to get round' in front of the oaf Witness had been rlm-fng Anmointtation cars for various firm's for ttitw years, and, whilst be had had misnans, ho had now? had an accent To Mr. Dunn: FlumUfl had tnvvoiied about 100 tcet. whilst witness was Cf-T----ering 17 feet iu his ear. He. did not notice plaintiff from tire time when he first saw him until the moment that he collided, with the ear.

To Mr. Buddie: The aepitbpi ""ownrred almost directly opposite thi> point | wlir-re witness had started from Dr. Hamilton A. Gilmer ™*° «n-;-doncc that lie had examined'plaintiff's leg, winch had mended vcrv ireil. and was unlikely to five-any sians of permanent injury. There vims iVhiV unusual in tho fact that tho ]<*<r weTs inclmed to swell and jrivo pain in th»morning. ' Counsel' addressed tho hjry, and Tlis Honour haviiur 'summed up, tho jus-y retired at 12.35 n.ra, After an absence of 25 minutes the jury fcttirned. and in response to the usual'n«u>si>ios tte foreman said: " ■\Ve liave no difficulty whatever in arriving at an acremne-rrt. Our verdict is unanimous for d»fr»itrlnnt; I . should also like to mention that w* consider there was no rmeUijofiec 'whatever on his part. Judgment was accordmsdy entered m>, for defendant with costs "'aVeording to scale, witnesses' expenses, and ° disbursements.