AN INSURANCE QUESTION

Evening Post, Volume CX, Issue 132, 2 December 1930, Page 13

AN INSURANCE QUESTION

COMPANY SUCCESSFUL

SICKNESS, POLICY STRINGENT

His reserved decision was given by Mr, E. Pago, S.M., in the Magistrate's Court to-day in the caso in which George Thomas Maslem proceeded against the London, Lancashire Tire Insurance Company, Ltd., for additional compensation which the plaintiff considered was duo to him under an accident and sickness policy taken out with the defendant company. The plaintiff, a. coach-smith in business on his own account, said the Magistrate in his written judgment, held with the defendant company a policy of insurance against accident and sickness. The clause relating to sickness stated that if the insured should '' bo rendered totally unable to attend to business of any kind and be necessarily and continuously confined to the house,". as the result of, inter alia non-tubercular pneumonia, he should be paid compensation at the rate of £6 a week for a period not exceeding fiftytwo weeks... . . ''~ .': \ In March, 1929, the plaintiff contracted pneumonia, and as a result his heart was seriously- -affected. He had been paid, compensation at.the rate of £6 a week from 4th March to 29th July 1929, and also compensation (under a subsidiary clause in the policy) for a furthor four weeks at £1 10s a weekbut he claimed that he was entitled to compensation at the full rate down to 4th February, 1930. The question, said Mr. Page, was whether the plaintiff had shown that Ins disablement beyond the date to which payment had been made had been sufficient to come within the terms of the policy. The evidence, which the Magistrate reviewed, showed that the plaintiff had been m bed until early in June. From then- until July he was up and about the house for varying periods and then, for a change, ho went to Auckland for seven weeks. In Fobruary, 1930, the I plaintiff made a trip to Wauganui by motor-car, and it was up to that date that he claimed to bo entitled to compensation. ■ . ' "The terms of the policy are stringent," Mr. Page said. "Upon a careful consideration of the case I have come to the conclusion that, though the plaintiff was, for the period in question, substantially disabled, though he could get outside only with difficulty, and. could attend to business matters only to a small dogree, the evidence falls short of- establishing that he was 'totally unable to attend to business of. any kind, and necessarily and continuously confined to the . house.' I think, therefore, that judgment must" go for the defendant." Judgment ..was accordingly entered for the defendant with costs, £9 12s. On the application of Mr. C. A. L. Trcadwell, who, with Mr. A. Cresswell, appeared for the plaintiff at the hoaring, security for appeal was fixed at the amount of the costs, plus £7 7s. Mr. H. Johnston, K.C., and-Mr. F, W. Pitzherbert appeared for the defendant company.