REFUND OF INSURANCE

Dominion, Volume 15, Issue 54, 26 November 1921, Page 13

REFUND OF INSURANCE

-• AN ACTION BY LLOYDS. The Supreme Court (.Mr. Justice Sim presiding) was yesterday asked to decide whether insurance paid on goods believed to have been jettisoned should be refunded in the event of the said goods being found. . The case was one in which the local representative of Lloyd’s, London (Mr. Blair and Mr. Hadfield), proceeded against the Dominion Film Company Ltd. (Mr. Myers) for the recovery of the sum of «£ioso paid in insurance on a -parcel ot film. The money had been paid on the assumption that the film had been je - tisoned by th* rithority of the officers of the steamer Westmeath,-, when the ship caught fire on a voyage to the Dominion in June,' 192 b. Tire Claim ' or insurance had been made against Lloyd s wider a short-landed certificate the sum being duly pard Subsequently the tons were discovered in one of the Harbour Board’s sheds in Wellington, but it was not suggested that the transaction had been carried out in anything but a satisfactory and bona fide manner. For the defendant company, Mr. Biair contended that they had refused to refund the money or to take over the films that were recovered, -for legal and business reasons. Payment had been made in the first instance, through the mistake of n third party. The films wen no longer the property of the defendants, but were the .property of the as abandoned ar salvaged property The latter contention was advanced on th ground that the plaintiffs had paid insurance moneys on the film as for iota E under the policy covering then . The defendants, they stated ha ordered further supplies of films tore place the quantity supposed to have been Inst As the Westmeath had left .New Zealand, the defendants wrt'e under-a disadvantage us to an action against the shin and its owner*. The short- ended certificate stopped parties from alleging matter contrary to the effect of Ihe aerificate. Tn view of the fact that the defendants had ordered fresh supplies of film thev considered that it would be Unequitable were either party allowed to rescind an act under the, terms of the certificate. ' .„ , Mr. Mvers submitted that if .the.subject matter of an insurance was recovered before any money had been paid, the insured party could be entitled only according to the final event. On the other hand, if there was no settlement prior to the recovery, the claim would probably be based upon average, and not total loss. Adjustment was not final, and did not, he maintained, entitle the insured to payment. However, if payment as on total loss was made, insurer could not be entitled to recover his money. He was entitled to the yoedinsured on the basis of salvage, except where fraud entered. The Court reserved decision.