AN INSURANCE CASE

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 125, 13 February 1918, Page 3

AN INSURANCE CASE

CLAIM FOR COMMISSION. In a reserved judgment delivered in the Magistrate's Court yesterday by Mr. W. G. lliddell, S.M., a poin.t of interest to insurance companies and agents was involved. The plaintiff was John M'Ewan, insurance agent, who claimed from the Colonial Mutual Life Assurance Society, Ltd., the sum of £23 4s. Gd. for deferred commission on business obtained by plaintiff for the defendant society up to September IS, 1916. The defendants admitted that this amount was due to the plaintiff, but counter-claimed for £37 10s., the amount alleged to be owing by plaintiff to defendants for policies in his agency which lapsed prior to the expiration of thirteen weeks from tho termination of his employment. Plaintiff acted as one of the agents of the society, and secured a considerable volume of business, and was paid commission according to terms set out in tho agreement of' employment. Tlio £23 ds. Cd. claimed by the plaintiff was made up of deductions made by the society from his. commission under an agreement providing for tho estabrannt of a fidelity bond. The Magistrate commented that no evidence was given 'to show the total number of policies written by plaintiff, or what proportion the policies which woro lapsed after • the termination of his employment bore to tho total number secured by him. After reviewing the conditions of employment, His Worship stated: "It is Kaid that no obligation lies on tho part of defendant to exercise any effort to retain an ox-agent's business during the first thirteen weeks after his employment with the society has ceased, but I think ; such a condition must be implied. The inference is that the offqrts on the part of the society have, in the absence of direct evidence to the contrary, been of such an indifferent nature as to warrant the Court concluding that so long as they held in hand moneys belonging to tho plaintiff it was a matter of little importance whether policies introduced by him lapsed or not." As to the stability of the business secured by plaintiff, the Magistrate said "some of it might have proved quite stable, if the ordinary means of collection pursued by the plaintiff -while in defendant's employ had been continued by later agents." If lapses had taken place the onus was on the society to show that reasonablo efforts were made to prevent this. Regarding the counter-claim, His Worship did not think that the society had proved its right to the amount sued lor. Judgment was accordingly entered for plaintiff on tho claim for £23 4s. Gd. and costs £3 25., and for plaintiff on the counter-claim with £2 2s. • solicitor's fee.

At the hearing, Mr. A. AY. Blair appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. A. Dunn for the defendant society.