AN INSURANCE QUESTION DISCUSSION BY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. Auckland, December 6.

Te Aroha News, Volume VII, Issue 427, 11 December 1889, Page 4

AN INSURANCE QUESTION DISCUSSION BY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. Auckland, December 6.

A mketing of the Chamber of Commerce was held yesteiday afternoon in the Chamber room, Insurance Buildings. There were present) : Captain Colbeck (in the chair), Messrs M. Clark, R. Hunt, B. Kent, S. Vaile, H. Wilding, A. H. Nathan, C. C. McMillan, Allen (Morrin and Co ), Hudson (Ireland Brothers), Towsley, and Biidgewater. After the notice convening the meeting had been rend by the secretary, he read the following circular, received from the Underwriters' Association, which was the subject matter for discussion by the meeting :—: — " If the property insured shall at the breaking out of any tire be collectively of greater value than the sum insured thereon, then this Company shall pay or make good such proportion only as the loss or damage as the sum so in&ured shall bear to the whole value of the said property ac the time when such lire shall happen." It has been resolved: "That the above clause applies to all stocks, fixtures, fittings, plant and machinery where the amount of assurance is £5,000 or upwards, to take ellect from Ist November, 1889." Captain Colbeck said ho was not in a posi- [ tion to offer any remarks on this subject, as he had only heard of it just before the meeting. Ho thought it strange that the I clause did not apply to propeities under i.5,000, but he would call on other members with more knowledgo of the subject to speak. Mr McMillan said the warehousemen had already held a meeting on this subject, and thought the Chamber of Commerce should takeitup. Thisaverageclausewasquiteanew thing in Auckland, though it existed in nearly all other places. Previously, no matter what the total value of the property, if it were insured for £10,000 and that value were destroyed, then £10,000 was recovered from the Insurance Company. But now they were asked to go into partnership with the Insurance Companies, and that without a induction of the rates to the same amount as in other places. They objected to the companies taking this action without notice. They wanted at least six months' notice so that they might enter into new arrangements with foreign companies. Six months' notice should have been given, and premiums should have been reduced to about half their present amount. The average clause was sure to be adopted, but he hoped the Insurance Companies would exerci&e some judgment, as the merchants could easily adopt a policy of retaliation. Mr Nathan said he could endorse all Mr McMillan had said. For a long time the Insurance Companies had been taking advantage of the merchants in Auckland and elsewhere in New Zealand to make up for losses sustained in other parts of the world. Insurers should have some voice in this matter, co that if necessary they might take their risks elsewhere. Mr McMillan then moved, " That in the opinion of this meeting a notice of at least six months should be givon before adopting this arrangement, and that they are of opinion that a considerable i eduction should be made in the amount charged on premiums." He aftorwaids added, "That a copy of the resolution be sent to the Underwriters' Association." Mr Vaile said he had often fought over this clause,as it would work badly, through the insurer having to take so much risk that ho might lose a large amount of money above the sum received from the Insurance Company, and might be driven into the Bankruptcy Court. The Insurance Companies had no right to ask for a premium, and then ask the insurer to take the risk. It would simply lead to over-insurance. Mr Bridgewater said he must disagree with the last speaker. Ho thought the average clause quite equitable ; but the rates were simply ridiculous. In London the insurance was in his time only about 2s 6d and in private houses 2s. Mr Vaile said he saw nothingequitable in a system by which a man insured £10,000 of property for £5,000 and when he had the total value of the property destroyed he only got £2,500. Mr Bridgewator said it was quite plain that if a man took half the risk himself, and the Insurance Company took halt, each should bear half the loss. Mr Kent said Mr Biidgewater was quite right as to the principle of the average clause. As to the matter of time he was pretty sure that notice would be given, but he could not speak authoritatively, nor could he give any promise as to the rates. He quite agreed with the opinion that New Zealand companies lost by the outside business. Mr Tew&ley said that thelnsurance Companies would only take half risks, and they should then give notice to merchants that they might insure elsewhere, The motion was then put and carried unanimously. A vote of thanks to the chair concluded the meeting.