INSURANCE CLAIM

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 53, Issue 132, 16 March 1933, Page 2

INSURANCE CLAIM

APPEAL BY TWO COMPANIES. JOHNSON CASE CONTINUED. (Per Press Association) WELLINGTON, March 15. - The Court of Appeal continued the hearing of the case of the Australasian Temperance arid General Mutual Assurance Society arid, the Commercial Union Assurance Company against Elizabeth Ivy Johnson and John Randolph Johnson. _ ' Mr Cresswell submitted that Mrs Johnson, by delaying taking steps'to enforce the alleged claim, destroyed certain chances of recovering the moneys which .the companies paid out to Johnson. Mr Sievwright, for the respondent, Mrs Johnson, said thgt in this case the facts were all-important-. In each case where ratification and estoppel were urged the facts must be scrutinised carefully and each case dealt with on its own particular facts. In the case before the Court, after a trial extending oyer many days and the production of much evidence, Mr Justice Reed expressed himself as satisfied that the receipts, were forged. That finding should not he disturbed. / The Chief Justice (Sir Michael My ers): On that point we need not trouble you, Mr Sievwright. We are all agreed that there would be no justification for us to differ from the trial Judge’s finding that the receipts were forgeries. Case for Respondent. Mr Sievwright then dealt with the question or alleged damnification, nairiely, that the appellants were placed in a worse position by Mrs Johnson’s delay. He submitted the only evidence of damnification was. that ,of Johnson, who evidence had been proved to be absolutely unreliable and should be rejected by the Court. ,As to whether or not the accident camejwithin the. terms of the Commercial Union policy he submitted that there was ample evidence to support the finding »of the trial judge that Mrs Johnson’s injury was occasioned by her jumping out of thejear and the train running over her foot. That clearly constituted an accident in direct connection with a motor-car and consequently was covered by the policy. Counsel submitted that the evidence of the locomotive fireman tvas conclusive in proving that the accidentHo Mrs Johnson had occurred when she was jumping from the ear. She had sustained an “accident” within the terms of the policy and was. entitled to recover. In any case, however, the insurance companies had admitted liability and they could not now repudiate her claim because they had paid the wrong person. Admission of liability and payment, even though Made to the wrong person, constituted the companies and Mrs Johnson debtor and creditor respectively, preventing the companies from raising technical defences based on clauses of the policies. To the defence of the companies that .the dispute had not been inferred to arbitration by Mr Johnson he submitted that “dispute” meant a dispute as to liability, and liability had been a dmitted by the companies at an'early stage of the proceedings. 1 The Cour.t adjourned until to-mor-row. • - -