INSURANCE RISKS.

Auckland Star, Volume LVIII, Issue 211, 7 September 1927, Page 8

INSURANCE RISKS.

CLIENTS SUCCESSFUL CLAIM.

COMPANIES TO PAT £1000.

INTERESTING JUDGMENT.

An important point of law in regard to insurance policies was laid down by Mr. Justice Stringer in the Supreme Court to-day, when he gave judgment for £1000 in favour of Roy Ernest Eastman, building and drainage contractor, against tfle Eagle, Star and Dominion* Insurance Co., Ltd., and the New Zealand Insurance Co.. Ltd. A workman in plaintiff's employ had been seriously injured by tie fall of the side of a drain at Claudelands, Hamilton, and tbe injured man obtained £1267 damages and costs from his employer. Eastman held an insurance policy for £1000 covering accidents to his workmen, but the defendant companies refused to pay on the ground that, according to the terms of the policy, only operations in Auckland city and suburbs were covered. For plaintiff, Mr. Finlay contended that tie words "Auckland city and suburbs" was merely the description of tbe firm, and that all its work wae covered. For the defence Mr. Northcroft had submitted that Eastman was not entitled to cover for risks in a district for which no premiums nad been paid. y Giving judgment, his Honor said, wnere a proposed insurance was in connection with factories or shops, tie question as to the situation of premises where the trade or business was carried on was quite appropriate, and might be important in determining the nature of the risk, but the question appeared to him to be quite inappropriate where a proposal was made in connection with a building and sewerage contractor's business, which, as the parties must have known, had no local habitation, and from its very nature was always changing its scene of operations. Exceptional Cues. "It is well known," said his Honor, That the premiums for such insurance are uniform, and do not vary with the locality, except perhaps in such exceptional places as Rotorua or White Island, as to which it would be easy for the insurance company to exempt itself from liability in express terms, or to charge a special vote of premium for anv increased risk." Construing the matter as it stood, without the aid of decided cases, be would have arrived at the conclusion that it was not intended that the protection of the plaintiff should be limited in tbe way contended on behalf

of the defendants. This, in his opinion, would hare rendered the insurance largely illusory, and would not give a reasonable business efficacy to the contract.

He had no doubt that, having regard to the nature of the business and the knowledge, common to defendants and other business men, that the locality of the operations of a building and sewerage contractor must necessarily be changed from time to time, it was not intended nor understood by either of tie parties, that the words "'Auckland city and suburbs* , should operate as a limitation of the area within which the policy should apply. He accordingly gave judgment for plaintiff with cost* according to scale.