APPEAL COURT.

Press, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20500, 19 March 1932, Page 11

APPEAL COURT.

MOTOR INSURANCE CASE. IMPORTANT POINT INVOLVED. (PRISS ASSOCIATION TKLEGKAK.) WELLINGTON, March 18. A case of considerable importance to insurance companies was before the Court of Appeal to-day, in the appeal case of the National Insurance Company v. Joyes. ' Bernard John Carlyon Joyes, of Stratford, draper, in October, 1930, whilst' driving a car belonging to his svife, came into collision with another car owned by the Todd Motor Company. In the collision L. M. Corder-y, H/awcra manager of the Todd Motor Company, was injured, and his employers were deprived of his services for 13 weeks. Proceedings were subsequently brought in the Supreme Court, New Plymouth, by the Todd Motor Company against Joyes claiming the cost of the repairs to the car and the loss suffered by it on account of the bodily injuries to its servant, and judgment was entered for the company in the amount claimed, £540 6s sd. The National Insurance Company had been nominated as the third-party insurers in .respect of.'Mrs Joyes's car, and a comprehensive cover with that company had also been taken out* by her.. Joyes then cfaimed to be indemnified in respect of the Todd Motor Company's claim by the insurance company which, whilst (idmitting liability under the comprehensive policy in respect of that part of the Todd Motor Company's claim, which consisted of damage to, the motor-car, denied liability on any- ground in re- j spect of the balance of the claim of) £248 6s sd, which consisted of salary paid to Cordery whilst injured and expenses of appointing a temporary manager at Hawera during that period. Joyes thereupon brought an action in the Supreme Court at Wellington claiming a 'declaration that he was entitled to be indemnified bv the insurance company in respect of the balance of the Todd Motor Company's claim, either under the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Risks) Act. 1928. or under the comprehensive policy. The matter was hyard before Mr Justice Ostler in December last who, holding that Joyes was entitled to be indemnified under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1928, held that it was unnecessary to answer the Question whether lie also was indemnified din'or the comprehensive nolicy. •The appeal was brought from that decision. Contentions of Appellant. Counsel for appellant submitted that the liability of the insurance company nominated to carry the third party risk was restricted to the liability to indemnify claims brought by two classes of nersons only: (1) In the case of death to those having claims under the Deaths by Accident Compensation Act, 1908. (2) In the case of bodily injury to those suffering injury. Tha intention of the Legislature, was to cover indemnity for liability for damage only directly and immediately connected with personal injury or death, and not consequential damage of property or property rights. In the case of injury to a servant, there was not, nor was there ever intended to be. anv liability to indemnify a negligent driver in respect of claims made by an employer for loss of services. The trial in dee had held that tlipre was liability to indemnify a claim brought by a master for the death of his ser-

vant. That was clearly wrong in law, as a master in the case of the death o) a servant had no right of . action against the wrongdoer. The liability of the wrongtjoer to a master for loss of services was based on loss of service and not on actual injury to the servant, consequently it could not be said that such liability was indemnified by the Motor Vehicles.Third Party Insurance Act, 1928. which only indemnified claims made on account ot death or bodily injury. Submissions toy Respondent. ; Counsel for respondent submitted that the language of the Motor Vehicles Third Party Insurance Act, 1928, unambiguous. The indemnity created by that Act clearly covered the liability of negligent motorists to, P a y damages to a master for loss occasioned by injury to a servant. . The Court was not concerned with the consequences which might arise from accepting this view, but was bound to give the words their obvious meaning. ' The liability of a motorist indemnified was tne whole liability, of the motorist, not part of his liability. , ~ Dealing with the Question wlietliei the damage before the Court covered by the comprehensive policy, counsel submitted that the word property" in the insurance policy covered all forms of property. The right of a master to the services of was a property right, and . when i fringed by the negligent drmngjrf a motorist" was covered bv the md Contained in that motorist's compie »»til Mondw.