INSURANCE APPEAL

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 53, Issue 131, 15 March 1933, Page 3

INSURANCE APPEAL

THE JOHNSON CASE. COMPANIES DISPUTE LIABILITY. (Per Press Association) WELLINGTON, March 14. The Court of Appeal continued the hearing of the case of the Australasian Temperance and General Mutual Assurance Society and the Commercial Union Assurance Company against Elizabeth Ivy Johnson and John Kandolph Johnson. The case for the T. and G. Society was continued this morning by Mr O'Leary. The next defence raised by him was that the payment by the T. and G. Society was a good payment, in that there was evidence that there had been ratification by Mrs Johnson ■of the receipt by her husband of the money. The T. and G. Society had paid out on two documents, one claim form admittedly signed by Mrs Johnson and the other receipt which Mrs Johnson denied having signed. If the receipt was genuine then counsel urged that his client, the company, was entitled to succeed, even although all other contested documents were, proved to be forgeries." It could not be doubted that the recejpt suffered from its association with other contested documents. Mr O'Leary stressed the point that the signature on the receipt did not contain the unusual initial "E" found on ether contested documents. Case for Commercial Union. The case for the Commercial Onion was opened by Mr Parry, who joined with Mr O'Leary in tne submission that Mr Justice lleed should not have accepted Mrs Johnson's evidence that the T. and G. receipt was a forgery, in addition, further and different considerations, applied to his client company's policy from those which applied to the policy of the T. and G. Society, in that, the former was a comprehensive motor policy and the latter an or--dinary accident policy. If the Court ' accepted the story of Mis Johnson that she was deliberately held on a train rail by her husband whilst a train ran over her foot, counsel submitted that the cause of injury to 'Mrs Johnson was not an "accident" within • the meaning of the policy. The proximate cause was not in connection with a motor car and such connection was necessary to entitle Mrs Johnson to claim under the policy. His client company was not liable on the policy, as an incorrect account of the accident had been inserted in the claim form prepared by Johnson and accepted and ratified by Mrs Johnson. That was a breach of the terms of the policy which entitled the company to disclaim liability. ' Mr Parry submitted that the company dealt all along with Johnson, and as no objection had been raised by Mrs Johnson the company was entitled to complete its dealings with him. He contended further that Mrs Johnson was stopped by,failure to notify the company for some considerable time of the "fact that there had been unauthorised payment and that she intended to claim against the company. The Court adjourned until to-mor-row. In the action against the Commercial Union Company the claim was niade under a comprehensive motorcar policy whereby Mrs Johnson insured inter alia for £250 and £lO medical expenses for the loss of a leg. The claim aganst the T. and G. Society was based on the provisions of the ordinary accident policy entitling the insured to the sum of £SOO for the same injury. In each case the insurance companies acknowledged liability and paid the insurance moneys to the husband of the plaintiff,' Mrs Johnson, and obtained receipts purporting to he signed by her. Mrs Johnson alleged that these receipts were forgeries and the Court accepted this view. The trial judge held that Mrs Johnson had not signed the receipts and that she had not received the moneys to which she was entitled under the provisions of the policies. The appeal was brought against this decision.