AN INSURANCE POLICY.

Auckland Star, Volume XLVII, Issue 69, 21 March 1916, Page 2

AN INSURANCE POLICY.

WHAT DID IT COVER! An unusual" case* wis''heard by Mr 15Page, S.M., at the Magistrate's Court, to-day. The Standard Fire and Marine Insurance Co. (Mr W. D. M. Glaistcr) sought to recover from Thomas Prendergast (Mr Scott), the sum of £3 alleged to be due as premium upon an accident and diseases policy. Mr Glaister said this was a claim upon a proposal of insurance signed by defendant. He understood the defence was that Prendergast waß liable to attacks of rheumatism, and thought he was covered for that by the policy. The proposal asked, amongst other questions, if the applicant had been attacked by rheumatism, and the answer was "no." The whole dispute rested upon the question of what the agent's representation had been to defendant. Harold W.~Joyce, accident inspector, and agent for the plaintiff company,stated he took a risk in respect to Thomas Prendergast. In answer to Mr Scott, witness said he had not covered defendant for rheumatism. If they did that, every man in Auckland would take out a policy to cover him from rheumatism. Witness believed a question was asked by defendant whether the policy covered rheumatism. He waß not aware that defendant had suffered from rheumatism. Witness wrote out the answers to the questions as directed by defendant. The whole thing was read out before Mr Prendergast signed it. He considered defendant fully understood that rheumatkm was not a risk covered. Witness was not able to produce the policy, but submitted the formal one. Thomas Prendergast said he had suffered from rheumatism for 15 years. The agent said his company would assure against anything, although witness had said no company would take him. He told the agent that he suffered from rheumatism. A proposal was then submitted, and he was told to sign it. ' The proposaMvas hot "read-oiit to 'hatt:before he signed. His signature /was. obtained on the understanding that. he. .tra ocing insured against everything. He took back the policy and left it in the Standard Insurance Co.'s office because rheumatism was not covered. His Worship held that defendant bad not satisfied him that it was represented to him that the policy covered rheumatism. Judgment was therefore given for the plaintiff, with costs.