Fight to Begin

Hawke's Bay Herald-Tribune, Issue 206, 16 September 1937, Page 5

Fight to Begin

Our Own Correspondent.)

MOTOR INSURANCE Companies Oppose Minister's' Proposals PROOF OF NEGLIGENCE , a

(From

WELLINGTON, Last Nignt. This weelc the fight of the insuranc* companies is to. begin against the Qovt ernment 's proposal to alter the existm|[ legislation so that it will be possiblo ta collect insurance in motor accidents despite lack of proof or evidence of negligence. It is understood that the companies are to meet the Minister of Justice, the , Hon. H. G. E. Mason, on Friday next and bring before him the dangers which may result from such a course. One of these, naturally, is the sheer impoSsibility of calculating the increased liability whieh the companies will inciir if the legislation goes through. In the past, many cases where accidents have occurred, due to negligence, have never reaehed the Courts, the peopla acting on the advice of their Iawyers, who have told them of the uselessnesi of bringing a suit. It is impossi^ile tO say how many of these people who were insured might have brought a suit or fot what sum they might have proceeded, and it is impoSsible to forecast just to what extent accidents of the future would mulct insurance companies under the new law the Government proposes to create, £40,000 in Losses, However, the companies are aware of one thing, ahd that is that the operations of the third-party risk scheme last year cost them £40,000 in losses, and it is clear that these losses will materially increase if the law is altered in the direetion the Minister now intends. This matter of loss on the operations of the fund, however, is already known to the Government for, some time ago, the companies proposed to increase the insurance premium payable by a motorcar driver from 17/- at which it stands to-day, to 22/6 or even 25/-. It was intended to do this as an ordinary preeaution of business. However, the Government did not agree with this course, and the companies were told by the Miniter of Transport that, if they insisted on increasing the prCmium for motorists, the Government would have to consider whether it was not advisable to divert the buiness to the State insurance departments. The attitude of the Minister of Transport at that time, it is understood, was that by stimulating business the Goveronment had put more cars back on the roads and thus inereased the companies profits. The attitude of the companies, however, was that this greater volume of insurance had merely heightened their losses. However, tho matter Teached a deadlock at that point, and the premium for the third-party risk plan has remained unchanged. TTnfortunate Results. Even now, it appears from what can be learned here that the companies are reluctant to make any move which would antagonise the Govprnment for readily understandable Teasons. However, by meeting the Minister of Justice in private, they hope to shoW him tfyat the Government is taking % couTse which will possibly have. unfortunato results. In addition, it will be pointed siefcl that a curious anomalous position will be created between a negligent pedes— trian who is killed and thus enricbes his family by £2000, and the iudustTious worltmau who is killed through no faulfc of his own aud whose family re-« ceives only half that sum. It is not oxpected, however, that the Government will easilv be persuaded to abandon its plan, curious as the reasons for it appear to be when subjected to examinatiou.