CLAIM FOR INSURANCE

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 534, 11 December 1928, Page 14

CLAIM FOR INSURANCE

SUCCESSFUL ACTION AGAINST COMPANY POLICY TREATED AS SUBSISTING (From Our Own Correspondent) HAMILTON, Monday. An important judgment of in* terest to insurance companies and all policy-holders was delivered by Mr. Justice Blair in the Hamilton Supreme Court. The case was that in which Arthur William Overall claimed £4BO on an insurance policy issued by the Victoria Insurance Company. Judgment was given for plaintiff for the full amount, with costs on the middle scale, disbursements, and witnesses’ expenses. The risk covered by the policy was a seven-roomed dwelling at Mamaku, £375; outbuildings, £75; cowshed and bails, £3O. On September 18 the house and outbuildings were destroyed by fire. The defence was, firstly, that the policy had lapsed for non-payment of premium, and that the mortgagee. Mrs. Helen Emma Warren, had no interest in the policy when she transferred it to plaintiff. This alleged want of interest was also based on non-payment of premium. It was not disputed that the premium was not paid at the time of the fire, but plaintiff claimed that by reason of the circumstances the defendant company was either stopped from settling up non-payment, or that the defendant company by its conduct treated the policy as subsisting, and waived its right to treat it as lapsed. ACCEPTANCE OF TRANSFER FEE Summing up, his Honour said that when a fresh contract was made between the parties, it was clear that Overall paid, and the insurance company accepted, 2s 6d transfer fee as a consideration for something. believed the policy was a subsisting one. The company must have been aware of the fact that the premium was not actually paid, yet, knowim. this, they accepted a transfer fee. Couia any insurance company, knowing tnaa policy had lapsed for non-paymen of premium, accept a transfer fee pai in the belief that the policy was subsisting, or wait until a fire has occurred, and then claim the P° , ; which they treated as subsisting, w not subsisting. By accepting payment for the tran - fer, they lulled Overall into the i that his premises were insured. J™ j remained the position until two oa I after the fire, when the through its Marton agents, aavisru | that the premium was not paid. “I think, also, that it is a fair inter ence to make that insurance coni panies are aware of the practice has prevailed for so many Y ear .. v the assignee of an insurance P adjusting with the- assignor for unexpired portion of the premium, assignee would not go to trouble expense of getting the sent to an assignment if the policy not a subsisting one.” His Honour said that Overall as though the policy was sudbeyond doubt.