FIRE INSURANCE POLICY

Hokitika Guardian, 28 August 1924, Page 4

FIRE INSURANCE POLICY

1 .VIE REST ING LAW CASE. INVERCARGILL'. August 20. An interesting ,a-e was heard at the Supreme Court before Mr Justice Sim, in which Annie Prenderville proceeded against the Provincial Assurance Company. Ltd., oil a claim of £2oo, alleged t.i be due on mi oral contract for insurance on the furniture in her house in Night, np.s. which was destroyed by lire.

'lhe case for ] laintitf was that in November last she saw tlie defendant company's agent at (that. James Wilson, with a view to taking out a policy on the fiifc*iiturc. A lew days Jater Wilson inspected the furniture and plaintiff made out a proposal form, paying Wilson IDs 6:1. which she alleged was the amount of the premium stipulated by Wilson. She was tendered a receipt liv Wilson, w hich she'regarded as . over. Subsequently she went to liivertiu. and while* there her hStieo in Nightcaps was destroyed. Accordingly -he made out a p.ri.of of the loss, (•lit defendant .otnpauy find not iv or. ni-vd liability, and bad informed her that Wilson had no authority to issue cover on the company's behalf, also that the .otupanv had not received any 1 ropo-nl form or premium commentary on tlie form of the' receipt issued hy ihe company's agent.

His Honor said that it was calculated to deceive anv ordinary person into

' , I:«•!i<■ vi ll -jr lie or six* I>:i■ I;i (over. Tlio ii:;-! - tile i mi],any altered it | tin' li'.'Ui'i'. ii-i it :is*l cared In In' n . wry ilMinn ■■■ 1 ":iv <!' doing husine.ss. I Tin l cum; any delcmVd the net ion oil Ihiv .* ‘.'rounds, the lir-i being that I till' agent liiid mi ] iiV.it In It:ml j t!k> omul :niy. (In !it-:*vie\idenca. however. iliis ilefenre v.iis abandoned, .•■lid llio i -1111 j: iit y defend'd ike n: tii ill mi tin.' grounds tlml plainiilf lind fjils'l- - .stilted ill (lie | rores.al fn: ill tlint t.he Ii :■ d lievi'f Iml imy ] tevinus clnini again-t IXIOI Iter i-oni] nny in res] net of lire, mil tl'nt tiiis fornti d the letsis of the I «'i v. A l it!'t h. r del'ence was .'•et in: th.nt |■ 1 11i11 1 ill' hied niiide n fal-e tl •ehirnti'iii cl' the less in her proof of less, and that this ren ’"re I the eontrait tm'l and void. In finding I'm (lie defendant eonipiuy oil the emend that the plabuilf had niisrei’i e.s. ntej that she had never had a elnini against another ioin;nnv in respect of (ire. his llomr said tlial it .seemed ih'sira'de to observe tll.'lt the methods of hlisineis ;r'o|:ted by ill" company in leganl to its re. nipt I’. rn wore veiy id ieetienahle. If the company had only emfo.vered its agent to give .a. re eipt. it slunthl make it perteetly elear that the agent had no authority to hind the miiii; any. Eustace Ittissrll, louusel let' the det'eiiee. •tilt' I that ill view of via had enme out in the ea-“. the iiiiiiraiiy would immediately take tstc; s to autho. ise agents to issue .'-hurt-dated cover note-'. The i oni] any had only lre aiitly a hi- I lir.’- ii'-iir.a m-a to life j insurmiee, and its mi-take was due to inexperience.