AN INSURANCE QUESTION.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5447, 11 September 1878, Page 3

AN INSURANCE QUESTION.

[advertisement.] TO THE EDITOR OF THE NEW ZEALAND TIMES. Sir, —Some few mouths since the following letter was forwarded .to me by a Wellington firm : “ Wellington, 27th October. “ T. 0. Williams, Esq, “Dear Sir, —I have seen Mr. Boardman, and he will abide by the letters addressed to Messrs. Izard and Bell. “lam willing this matter should be investigated in a Court of Law, and I have instructed Messrs. Travers and Ollivier, my solicitors, to accept service of writ.—l remain, &c., (Sd.) “E. Aug. Krull.” As Mr. Krull has expressed himself desirous of having the little matter in dispute between us publicly investigated, with its interesting appertainings and surroundings, and as all questions in connection with insurance monies must be more or less of public interest, I feel persuaded neither Mr. Krull nor your readers will object to my requesting you to publish the following : The facts are simple. Tamihana Te Rauparaha, a native chief, died at Otaki in October, 1876, leaving a will appointing Mr. E, Baker and myself trustees to his estate. The heirs are a half-caste grandson of old Te Rauparaha, who has a life interest in the greater portion of the estate. At his death the property will fall to his children. The other heirs are Maori infants. In Eebruary, 1877, a house belonging to the estate, and which had been leased to a Mr. Langley, and occupied by him as a store, was, four months after Te Rauparaha’s death, and two months, after expiry of the lease, burnt down. We afterwards heard that the house-had been Insured in tho South British Insurance * Company, and that the insurance money had been paid to Messrs, Krull and Co. We waited upon Mr. Krull, he seemed in excellent burner, told us it was one of the jolliest fires he had heard of for a long time, that he was beginning to get very uneasy, as Langley was owing him a lot of money. “ The money came in very handy, I assure you.” We ventured to suggest that the money should be p:nd over to us on behalf of the owners, when Mr. Krull told us we must look* to Mr. Langley. We told him we should of course look to him—the party who had received the money, when he said : <J Oh 1 I am all right, if you are not satisfied we can fight it out.” He also said that the owners ought to have taken care to protect themselves. I went to the insurance office, where I saw the policy with Mr. Krull’s receipt for tho money. We also ascertained that Mr. Langley had failed; that the £2OO In question, with £3OO insured upon the goods, had been paid into' his estate, Messrs, Krull and Co. being the principal creditors. Mr. Krull told me himself that he insured this property to protect a debt owing to him by Mr. Langley, the tenant, not to protect the interests of persons in whose affairs he had no concern. After various correspondence and meetings with Mr. Krull, he agreed to discuss the matter with a “ mutual friend.” The interview closed with his telling our “ mutual friend,” “Mr. Williams may take action and compel me to return this money to the company, but what good will that do Mr. Williams V The matter was then placed in the lawyers’ hands, with the following result: — “June 22, 1877. “ Messrs. Izard and BelL “Dear Sira, —X have to inform you. that Messrs. Krull and Co. have handed me a cheque for £2OO in dispute between Tamihana’s trustee and themselves, loss paid by this office to Krull and Co, “ X am prepared to hand this money over to Mr. Williams, for whom I understand you are acting, on substantiation of his claim within one month from date.”—l am, &c., (Signed) “Ai?. Boardman.”

“Wellington, August 28, 1878. “ Messrs. Izard and Bell. “ Dear Sirs, —I am just in receipt of advices from my' head office relative to jour claim on behalf of Mr. Williams, for payment of £2OO, Otaki fire loss. “ The directors consider that neither Krull and Co. nor Mr. Williams are entitled to pay ment under the policy ; the former became they had no insurable interest in the property, the latter because he effected no insurance himself; and it is laid down, &c., &c. . . . “ However, not being desirous of repudiating an agent’s action under a policy, the Board direct me to inform you that, without prejudice, the company will pay the party who proves his claim to it, or in the way both parties can agree upon.—l an, &c., (Signed) “Alf. Boardman." After reading the above X waited upon Mr. Krull at his office, and told him that the company were willing to pay the money, and asked if he was willing that I should receive it. He told me ho was; that he made no claim to it, that he was sick of the whole affair. He also assured me that he would request Mr. Boardman to pay me the money. I was surprised on my return from a visit to Wairarapa to find the following:— “September 18, 1877. “ C. B. Izard, Esq. ' “ Dear Sir, —On receipt of yours of yesterday re Williams’ claim for £2OO, Otaki fire loss, I asked Mr. Krull whether he had given consent to my paying Mr. Williams. He stated be had done so, believing that Mr. Williams had legally proved his claim. I informed him that nothing had been done in the matter, since my directors had decided that the proof of loss submitted by you did not disclose that Mr. Williams had a claim in law; and Mr. Krull now holds me to the terms of the letter I gave him when he handed me the £2OO, in which I agreed to pay the amount over to Mr. Williams only on legal substantiation of his claim I am, &o„ (Signed) “Alf. Boardman. “ September 20th, 1877. “ Messrs. Izard and Bell. “Dear Sirs, —As matters now stand with regard to Mr. Williams’ claim, I must decline to pay either him or Krull and Co. until it is ascertained in a Law Court which of them (if either) is the person entitled to the amount in dispute.—l am, &c., (Signed) “Alf. Boardman. I again waited on Mr, Krull and reminded him of what passed between us on a former occasion. The. interview closed by his telling me to go and do just whatever I pleased. “ Hobson-sfreet, November 1, 1877. “ E. Krull, Esq. “ Dear Sir,—l beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter in which you invito me to serve a writ upon you re the insurance money on house belonging to Te Eauparaha’s estate. “ In reply, I beg to remind you of my interview with yourself in your office, when you assured me that you made no claim to the money yourself, that you were quite willing I, should receive it, and that you would request Mr, Boardman to pay it to mo. The company do not require legal proof of claim.—l am, &e., “Thomas C. Williams.” “ Hohson-street, November 8, 1877. - “E. Krull, Esq, “Dear Sir—. , , . “As you appear anxious to have this matter investigated in a

Court of Law, I would suggest; that you should now briug an action against the company for the recovery of the money.,,., “ This affair has been and is to me a great nuisance. I have merely dono what I considered my duty, what I would baye done were I administering an estate, the heirs to tho estate your own children or any body else’s children.

“ The estate is minus a house, it is a small estate, and in debt. As you are not likely to get the money, it would b© creditable than otherwise were you now to request the company to pay the amount over to me,—l am, &c., “ Thomas C. .Williams.”

Tho following is the reply I received to a letter addressed by me to tho board of directors in Auckland : “ South British Eire and Marino, &c., “Auckland, Nov. 15, 1877. “T- O. Williams, Esq., Wellington. “Dear Sir, —I have referred your letter to our agent in Wellington, who is acting under instructions from this office.- Mr. Krull has not the slightest influence in the matter, and has not communicated with me on the subject. The position is a peculiar one, and unless something else can be put forward than what has been so far, the company can do nothing more than it has done. Neither party is apparently entitled to the money.—l am, &c., (Sd.) “A. Boardman, * “Manager.” “ Wellington, N.Z., Nov. 21, 1877. “T. C. Williams, &c.. “ Hob'son-street, Wellington. “Dear Sir,—With regard to the request in your letter of the 20th iust., that I would lay a letter of your’s of recent date before the Head Office, I must point out : First, that it lias already received the directors’ consideration ; secondly, that I cannot presume to refer any matter back to my employers after their opinion has been onne given, unless further matters are laid before them ; thirdly, that you have long since been informed that, though the directors need pay neither Krull nor yourself, they will hand the money to the legally entitled claimant, or dispose-of it as directed by both parties. “I may also remind you that the time (one month) originally allowed you for substantiation of your claim is long past, and unless speedy steps are taken by you in that behalf the money in dispute will be returned to Krull and Co. —I am., &c., (Signed) “Ale, Boardman, Agent.” I seat a telegram to the manager in. Auckland, asking whether my letter .had been laid before the board of directors, Tho answer was short and sweet—“ Yes.” From the above we gather that whereas I, the trustee to the estate to which the house insured belonged, was called upon to prove ray legal claim to the insurance money, there is nothing to show that Messrs. Krull and Co. were ever called upon to prove their legal claim, but there is to show that I was informed by the company that if I did not take “ speedy steps” to substantiate my claim, I presume, aa. originally suggested, “in a Court of Law,” “ the money in dispute will be returned to Krull and Co.” Tho following questions might arise:—lf a man insures a house, tho property of another, in order that he may protect a debt owing to bimself by a‘third party, and should such house not be burnt down,.what does such insurer gain for his pains ? Again, if a man may insure a house, the property of another, he having no insurable interest whatever in the property insured, insures it avowedly and solely that he may protect a debt owing to himself by a third party, and if insurance companies are warranted in taking such risks and paying the insurance money in case of fire to such insurer, even after they have’ ascertained that such insurer had no insurable interest whatever in the property insured, does not the necessity exist for a slight alteration in the law? Perhaps the local agent of the South British Insurance Company, with the Chairman of the Wellington Chamber of Commerce, will kindly favor ns with their opinions upon these questions.—l am, &c. t Thomas C. William?.