THIRD PARTY INSURANCE.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIII, Issue 217, 13 September 1932, Page 5

THIRD PARTY INSURANCE.

CONTRACT OF INDEMNITY. SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT. (By Telegraph.—Own Correspondent.) WELLINGTON, Monday. A reserved judgment was given in the Supreme Court to-day by Mr. Justice Reed on the issue as to whether a contract of indemnity under the Motor Vehicles Insurance (Third Party Risks) Act, 1928, between the South British Insurance Company, Limited, and George Soteros covered two items in special damages awarded James John Feely. The two items were a sum of £03, wages paid for additional assistance, and £58 10/, board and lodgings for the additional persons employed. The case involved an important principle. His Honor was asked to deal also with the question of the costs payable under the indemnity by the insurance company. The action for damages brought by Feely against Soteros, which was heard some time ago, arose out of a motor collision. Feely obtained judgment for £600 general damages, and £164 14/11 special damages. The latter sum including the amounts of £63 and £58 10/. After reviewing the finding of the jury and the mpaning of legislation, his Honor said his view in the case before him was that the amount allowed by the jury on both disputed items was payable by tho insurance company under the contract of indemnity and he answered the question on this point accordingly. Costs, said his Honor, were within tho discretion of the judge hearing the action, the discretion being, of course, a judicial discretion. "In the present case," he added, "the damages assessed by the jury included as special damages (if my judgment with regard to the two disputed items is sound) a comparatively small sum admittedly irrecoverable against plaintiff (the insurance company), it being for damages to property. The amount does not alter the scale of costs, and there is only a few pounds difference between the full costs as allowed and the costs that would have been allowed had these small amounts not heen recovered. "In these circumstances, the costs payable under. the indemnity by the company to Soteros should be ascertained, I think, by assuming that judgment was confined to the amount of total damages for which the plaintiff is required to indemnify the second defendant, and, adjudging that the costs should be on that scale, I repudiate in advance any suggestion that I am stating this as a general principle. Every case must be dealt with in the light of its own facts."