PAYMENT ON INSURANCE.

Auckland Star, Volume LVII, Issue 152, 29 June 1926, Page 5

PAYMENT ON INSURANCE.

CLAIM AGAINST COMPANY. QUESTION OF NOTIFICATION. An action that had been removed from the Magistrate's Court at the request of the plaintiff and which involves some interesting points was taken before Mr. Justice Stringer in the Supreme Court this morning. The action was brought by Albert Edwin Braund. engineer i Mr. M. H. Hampson), against the Mutual 1 Life and Citizens' Assurance Company. Ltd. (Mr. R. P. Towle). claiming £49 14/3, said to be due on an accident insurance policy. Mr. Hampson stated that on August 8, 1024. the plaintiff signed a proposal for insurance with the defendant company against any accident. The proposal was accepted by the company on September 15, 1924, and on September 2.3 the company was alleged to have executed a policy of insurance purporting to be in pursuance of the said proposal and that the policy departed from the proposal by introducing fresh terms. On May 29. 1925. the plaintiff, who was a foreman engineer, met with an accident. He quitted work on June 12. 192."), and suffered complete inability for twelve weeks and three days. It was contended that the insurance payable under the proposal was £4 per week. It was stated that the defendant company had wrongfully refused to pay the £49 14/3 held to be due. The plaintiff gave evidence as to the injuries he received, and this was corroborated by a medical practitioner. For the defence. Mr. Towle said the execution of the policy was admitted, but any suggestion that the policy departed from the proposal was denied. If the plaintiff suffered inability within the meaning of the policy the defendant company did not receive notice of tne accident as required, and that therefore no insurance was payable under that policy. It was clear that when the plaintiff took the policy he must have known that it would contain certain conditions. He submitted that the policy conditions formed part of the contract between the parties. Mr. Towle submitted that the fourteen days' notice required was not unreasonable, and it could not be said that because the doctor knew, that the company also was in possession of the facts. It was his contention that the plaintiff could not succeed. Mr. Hampson suggested that counsel for the defendant company should withdraw opposition to the technical point which covered the question of the notification and proceed on the other matters which involved the law. Mr. Towle agreed to this course. His Honor stated, after legal argument, that the legal aspect of the case was most important. He considered that Mr. Towle had done a generous and proper thing in withdrawing opposition to the technical claim involved in the matter of the period of notice that should be given. Judgment was reserved on the other facts of the case.