NO STATE MONOPOLY

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 393, 29 June 1928, Page 1

NO STATE MONOPOLY

THIRD-PARTY INSURANCE UNDERWRITERS AND MOTORISTS AGREE THE Government proposes to bring down a Bill providing for compulsory insurance of motor vehicles so far as “third-party risks are concerned. The only point on which the organised motorists and insurance companies are in agreement with the Government is that there should be compulsory third-party insurance. Any suggestion of a State monopoly will be a cause for a bitter fight.

At the moment, the Government proposals have been announced only in the -barest - outline, the Speech from the" Throne merely indicating that there was a proposal that the motorvehicle owners should pay an extra amount when re-registering their vehicles, such amount to form a fund to meet third-party claims. Third-party claims are those claims for damage done by a motorist to the person or property of any person not in the car at the time of the mishap, and exclude claims from members of the owner’s family. MEANS OF PROTECTION Opinions secured from motorists and insurance men this morning by The Sun indicate a. general agreement that there should be compulsory third-party insurance, mainly as a protection from owners and drivers who are unable to meet any liability for which they may be found responsible, but both motorists and insurance men are decidedly opposed to the insurance being made a State monopoly. The suggestion that there should be a payment at the same time as the annual licence arose with a local body in the South Island, the originator of the idea asserting that a careful inquiry had convinced him annual payment of £1 by each vehicle owner would provide a fund sufficient to meet all the demands of third-party claims. That the £150,000 or so that would be raised by this method would meet all the claims is ridiculed by those who are apparently in a better position to judge the liabilities. There is no secret about the fact that among the percentage of cars that are insured in Auckland, the thirdparty liabilities of the companies last year amounted to at least £20,000, and

had all the cars been insured this amount would have been doubled. Moreover, there is a tendency for this amount to increase. CHANCE FOR HAY-MAKING When the insurance companies limited the third-party liability under their policies to £I,OOO the legal profession and their clients likewise limited their claims. But now that the companies have increased their liability, there has been a pronounced tendency to consider damage to life, property, and limb on a distinctly higher financial basis, with the result that in Auckland at present there is one claim of between £4,000 and £5,000, and several others that range round the £2,000 mark. In short, Auckland alone would absorb nearly half of the sum that remained out of the £150,000 after the costs of collecting it had been defrayed. “Once there is CQ,pip,ulsory insurance, tlie claims are going to be bigger and bigger,” stated one underwriting representative. “How is the State —presumably the State Fire and Accident Insurance Department—going to control and handle the business, and deal with the conflicting claims, all of which it holds in its own office? A State monopoly would be entirely wrong.” Naturally, the companies look at the thing from the financial point of view, and the fact that the third-party premiums—which form by far the greatest portion of their income on this class of business —would be taken from them, and they would be left with small premiums to meet accidents to cars, fires, etc. The motorists supported thirdparty compulsory insurance, but Mr. G. Hutchison, secretary of the A.A.A., said this morning that he felt sure the motorists never for a moment contemplated a State monopoly. One very good reason why the motor associations "would not do so is that the motoring organisations in the South Island have started their own mutual insurance schemes, as one of the benefits of membership, and a similar movement is now being seriously considered in the North Island. Most of the southern portion of the island has already approved of the scheme submitted. All those interviewed considered that the motorist, who is after all only yesterday’s pedestrian, should not be entirely responsible, and that lack of care on the part of to-day’s pedestrians should be of equal importance. SPECIAL JUDGE WANTED Finally, there is complete unanimity on a suggestion that if there Is compulsory insurance, there should be a special and competent judiciary‘to deal with all motoring claims. “Once it is mentioned to a jury that an insurance company is involved, that is the end of the case for the motorist,” asserted one informant bitterly. “If the onus is going to be put on the motorist, he should be given a fair run. Moreover* the motorist wants, and is entitled to, a simple and straightforward set of rules, like the offside rule, which has been introduced with so much difficulty, and is the only simple rule he has yet.”