TNSURANCE CLAIMS.

Hokitika Guardian, 14 July 1926, Page 1

TNSURANCE CLAIMS.

ACOTCIiAXI). July 13. Judge Stringer to-day gave judgment for t.lie full amount in an action for Ihe recovery of iff!) 1 -Is 3d, due on an insurance policy, brought by Albert I'M ward Bitumd, against tlie Mutual life and Citizens’ Assurance Coy. The plaintiff was a mechanical engineer. Ho look out a combined life and accident policy for £IOO on October 10th. ’When disconnecting a crank shrift on May 29th, the plaintiff suffered an injury which developed into hernia. H’o claimed compensation. The company denied any liability. The plaintiff alleged that the policy issued by the company departed from the proposals, by introducing fresh terms but he had made no claim for a rectification of the policy. At the hearing. however. Judge Stringer granted an amendment, by adding a claim for a rectification of the policy to make -it conform to the proposal with regard to injuries by accident.

In the course of his judgment, Judge Stringer said that flic defence was:— First. flint there was no liability under the policy; and second, flint notice of the -accident was not given “forthwith,” hut. there being no doubt that the claim was a perfectly genuine one. tho.technical defence was very properly withdrawn. One of the conditions of the policy was that the company was not liable “for hernia however caused.” This provision contained thirty lines, of exceedingly small print, most difficult to read, and an enumeration of a- great variety of accident in respect, to which the company exempts itself frqtn liability. This was an. entire departure from the proposal, which contained no intimation of any Mich exemptions, and purported to cover accidents generally, and was not understood by plaintiff. He (Judge Strnger), was satisfied of the truth of plaintiff’s statement that he did net, know the meaning of the word hernia. If he had read the clause in question ho would have understood its effect in limiting his rights under assurance. It was the duty of the companies to make a policy accord with, and not exceed, the proposal, and to express both in clear and ambiguous terms. The policy would he rectified as before mentioned, and. on such rectification, the plaintiff was entitled to the amount claimed. Costs were awarded on the lowest scale, witnesses’ expenses, and disbursements.