INSURANCE CLAIM.

Waipukurau Press, Issue 303, 3 September 1908, Page 5

INSURANCE CLAIM.

ROKKJER v. AUSTRALIAN ALLIANCE ASSURANCE Co.

At the civil sittings of the Wellington Supreme Court on Tuesday, before Mr Justice Cooper, and a jury of four, the case was heard of C. N. Rokkjer v. the Australian Alliance Assurance Company, a claim of £250 on a policy of insurance said to have been executed by the company to plaintiff on stock and furniture in premises in Ruataniwha road, \ Waipukurau. The goods were destroyed by fire on May Ist. The company denied that the plaintiff had performed the conditions of any insurance policy that might be proved to have been executed.

Counsel for plaintiff said plaintiff arrived in New Zealand from Denmark about four years ago. In time he gained a sort of general speaking acquaintance with the English language, but before his arrival in New Zealand he didn’t know a word of English, and his wife did all his writing for him. They went to Waipukurau and started a draper’s shop, having taken with them stock and certain articles of furniture. Mr J. C. Simpson suggested to the plaintiff that he should insure his stock in the Phoenix Company for which he (Mr Simpson) was the local agent. Plaintiff agreed to do this, but a week or so later Mr Simpson told plaintiff that the proposal had not been accepted by the company. The plaintiff afterwards went into the office of the agents of the defendant company at Waipukurau and stated that he wished to effect an insurance. A proposal was drawn up, the premium paid, and in due course the policy was issued to the plaintiff. On May Ist the premises were destroyed by a fire, which originated through the upsetting of a kerosene lamp. Some days later Mr C. D. Morpeth, who' -was the Alliance Company’s adjuster, had an interview with the plaintiff, and directed that all papers in connection with the matter should be forwarded to the head office of the company, and this was done. Plaintiff claimed that his actual loss was £430 Os 7d, and the total amount covered by insurance was £250. Further information was asked from the plaintiff, and the whole thing was gone into minutely, but there was no settlement. Plaintiff went to the manager and asked him to settle, but the matter was referred to the company’s • solicitor.. The defence was not that the fire was caused by the plaintiff, and the company alleged no breach of any of the conditions of the policy ; the company, however, maintained that the question for the jury was “ Had the proposal been declined by any other company ?” The answer given by plaintiff was that it had not.

The plaintiff stated that when he went to the Waipukurau office of the company he saw Mr Carroll, the company’s agent, and made a proposal for insurance, but Mr Carroll did not read to him a question as to whether any other insurance office had declined the proposal, and he was not asked to read the questions on the proposal form.

C. D. Morpeth and P. S. Carroll gave evidence and said the answer to the question on the proposal regarding previous application to other companies was supplied by plaintiff. His Honor put the following issues to the jury : —(1) Did the defendant company’s agent put this question ? (2) Did the plaintiff answer “No” to such question? (3) Did the plaintiff know that the proposal contained this question and answer ? The jury answered each question in the negative.

His Honor said he would reserve the case for further consideration and argument. The answers given by the jury meant that there had been no wilful misstatement on the part of plaintiff, and counsel, in their argument, would have to look at the matter from that point of view.