INSURANCE CLAIM

Hokitika Guardian, 17 June 1931, Page 4

INSURANCE CLAIM

FOR DAMAGE BY FIRE

AN IMPORTANT ACTION.. (By Telegraph — Ver Press Association) GISBORNE, June 17 The hearing commenced at the Supreme Court before Mr Justice Blair of an action which Wairoa Farmers* Co-operative Meat Company and the> Bank of New Zealand cla.nn against the New Zealand Insurance and Eagle Star and British Dominion Insurance Company £77.860 for damage to the Wairoa Freezing Works allegedly caused by a fire on February 5. Plaintiffs are represented by Harold Johnston K.C., L. T. Burnard and Lloyd Wilson and the defendants by A. Gray K.C., H. P. Richmond and A. H. Johnstone. The case is expected to occupy several days. The statement of claim asserts that by a policy on August 31, 1029, defendants insured the plaintiff’s against loss or damage by fire or damage by fire or lightning, their works and plant at Wairoa, the total amount of insurance being. £139,176.

On February 5, 1931, the buildings and contents were destroeyd or damaged by fire, the loss and damage resulting being assessed at £77,850. Detailed particulars of the loss were delivered to the defendant companies OU March 17 but the defendants wholly rejected and refused to nay, and further have repudiated liability or to enter up ascertainment or assessment of the los s or damage. Plaintiffs therefore claim the amount of loss with interest.

The statement of defence alleges that if any part of the premises insured was destroyed by fire, which is denied, such premises consisted of a building oiily, and not separate buildings. They deny plaintiffs allegations as to .the fire and loss therefrom. They admit receiving the declaration and schedule, and that they refused to pay on same, Defendants allege that clause 5’ of the condition of policy (5) follows: — “If the whole or any part of any building hereby insured or containing property hereby insured or the whole or any part of the building of which it is part shall fall, or become displaced, all insurance by this policy or it s contents shall cease, unless the assured shall.prove the fall or displacement was caused bv fire.” The defendants allege if the destruction and damage occurred, it was after part of the building had fallen and had become displaced by reason of the earthquakes of February 3, 4,and 5.

Alternatively the defendants allege that the plaintiffs failed to prove such fall or displacement was caused by fire. Further, the defendants assert that insurance ‘does not, under any circumstances, cover loss or damage occasioned directly of Indirectly, pfoximately or remotely, through or tit ctm* sequence of an earthquake, or other convulsion of nature, plaintiffs have failed to submit proof that the alleged loss was not so caused,

Defendants quote clause 9 of the policy, requiring notice and endorsement if trade or manufacture is altered, or if the nature of the occupation or circumstances affecting the huddling are changed. Also clause 18, relating to arbitration in case of differences. Defendants state a difference has arisen, and they claim the right to arbitrate.