Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

CLAIM FOR INSURANCE

COMPANY DENIES LIABILITY (From Our Own Correspondent) HAMILTON, Friday. The Victoria Insurance Company (Mr. Johnston) was sued in the 1 Supreme Court to-day for £450 by j William Overall, a farmer, of Ma- j maku (Mr. Hampson). It was shown that Overall purchased a farm, with a house, and was in- ; formed that the insurance was paid. | His solicitors communicated with the j Auckland office of the insurance com- ■ pany and were informed that the prem- I ium was paid up till December, 1927. i The policy was transferred to plaintiff and returned to his solicitors. In September, 1927, the house was destroyed by fire. The company then refused to pay the insurance, stating that the premium was not paid. Considerable evidence was given regarding the payment of the premiums. Mr. Hampson submitted three points for consideration: (1) That there had been a new contract between the company and Overall; (2) the company had by its acts and conduct stopped itself from setting up a submission that the premium had not been paid; (3) the company did in effect elect to treat the policy as an existing policy and, therefore, waived its rights to the payment of the premium. Mr. Hampson added that the reason why no authority bearing on the case could be cited was that no company, having accepted a transfer of a policy, had been so courageous as to dispute the claim after a fire had occurred on the grounds that the premium had not been paid, a fact which was exclusively within their knowledge. Mr. Johnston’s submission was that the noting of a transfer did not constitute the making of a contract between the company and the purchaser of the property to whom the policy had been assigned and that such a person had no rights by virtue of the noting. It had been admitted that no premium had been paid to the company since the policy had expired in December, 1926, therefore no contract existed between the company and Overall, and, therefore, the company r as not liable for the payment of the insurance. Decision was reserved.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/SUNAK19280908.2.151

Bibliographic details

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 454, 8 September 1928, Page 14

Word Count
355

CLAIM FOR INSURANCE Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 454, 8 September 1928, Page 14

CLAIM FOR INSURANCE Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 454, 8 September 1928, Page 14

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert