INSURANCE LAW

Hokitika Guardian, 4 December 1931, Page 6

INSURANCE LAW

MOTORS IN COLLISION. ’ CLAIM FOR LOST SERVICES. WELLINGTON, December 2. A point of some interest under the Motor Vehicles Insurance (Third Party Risks) Act was decided in the Supreme Court; yesterday by Mr Justice Ostler. The action was one brought hy Bernard John Carlyon Joyes against the National Insurance. Company of New Zealand, Ltd., arising out of a motor accident. There were two questions of law arising in the action which were argued by consent, of the parties. The first question was decided in favour of plaintiff with costs, but in regard to the second his Honour said lie did not feel called upon to decide it as the construction of the clause in question was merely of academic interest and of no value in determining the rights of the parties.

In outlining the facts his Honour said that plaintiff while driving a motor-car belonging to his wife on October 15, .1930, negligently collided with a motor-car owned by the Todd Motor Company, Limited, damaging the car and severely injuring one Cordery, manager of the Hawera branch of the Todd Company, which was deprived ol his services for thirteen weeks, during which it had under .its contract to pay hjs salary and ito pay another manager. It sued plaintiff for damages, including a sum of £220 6s 5d in respect of the loss of Corderys’ services. INDEMNIFICATION OF DRIVER.

Mrs Joyes’s car was insured with defendant company both under the Motor Vehicles Insurance Act and under a comprehensive policy covering third party risks, The insurance company agreed that there was no defence to the Todd Motor Company’s claim, and judgment was entered in the action by consent against plaintiff for the total •sum of £540 6s sd. Joyes held a driver's license and was driving his wife’s car with her authority, and was therefore entitled under both the Act and the policy to be indemnified to the same extent as the owner of the car. The insurance company paid so much of the Todd Motor Company’s claim as related to damages to its car, but declined to pay the £220 6s 5d and £2B of the total costs, claiming that it was not Halne for the amount, either under the Act or under the policy. Plaintiff tnereiore sued the defendant company for the amount.

The first question, said his Honour, was whether under the statutory contract of indemnity created by the Motor Vehicles Insurance (Third Party Risks) Act, the company was liable to indemnify plaintiff for Ids liability to pay damages to the Todd Motor Company in respect,of its claim for loss of services. The defendant company had contracted to indemnify plaintiff from iliaKlity to pay damages by reason of bodily injury to any person, which was the result of an accident caused by the use of plaintiff’s motorcar. INTENTION CLEAR. His Honour held that the intention of the Legislature was clear, and that wherever the damage to the master was caused hy reason of bodily injuiy done to the- servant or by reason oi the servant being killed by the negligent use of a motor-car, the liability of the owner to the master was included in the indemnity. His /Honour realised the effect of the decision was to include in the indemnity a liability for damage o property, but that, in his opinion, was 'the plain meaning of the words used, and therefore must be held to have been the intention of the Legisture. The second question was whether plaintiff was indemnified against the claim in respect of the loss of services under the terms of the policy issued by the defendant company, but this question, his Honoud said, he did not feel called upon to answer for the reason already given.