BALLANTYNE’S FIRE CLAIMS

Press, Volume LXXXIV, Issue 25638, 29 October 1948, Page 9

BALLANTYNE’S FIRE CLAIMS

ALLEGATIONS BY MR MATHISON

DIFFERENT VIEW TAKEN BY MR WATTS

(From Our Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, October 29. Sharp practice on the part of insurance companies involved in claims arising from Ballantyne’s fire last November was alleged by Mr J. Mathison (Government, Avon) in the House of Representatives this evening on the second reading of the Finance Bill. Mr Mathison said that four unions, members of which lost their lives in the fire, engaged solicitors two working days after the fire. These approached fire adjusters, but none was available as they had all been previously engaged by insurance companies. “It was necessary to safeguard the rights of the relatives of those who lost their lives, but there wasn't one fire adjuster available to assist those relatives.” said Mr Mathison. “It may be smart business on the part of insurance companies, but I have another word for it.”

Mr J. T. Watts (Opposition. St. Albans) raised a point of order and said that Mr Mathison’s remarks were unfair. There were claims pending and it was not in order to discuss the matter now. It was ruled that no reference should be made to pending claims. . Two days after the funeral of the 41 victims representatives of the interested parties approached the relatives and asked them to sign certain statements. Mr Mathison continued. These statements materially affected their interests. Submissions had been made to the commission to hear evidence on this point, but the commission ruled it outside its scope. The practice was continued.

, Rights Protected Thanks to the Attorney-General (Mr H. G. R. Mason) and the Government, those relatives would have every opportunity to defend their rights, which others would have prevented them from doing, said Mr Mathison. “An effort was made to deny them any compensation at all,” Mr Mathison said. Some of the remarks made by the member for Avon were unfortunate, said Mr Watts. He was acting for some of the next-of-kin and knew that unfair statements had been made. There were two or three fire adjusters in Christchurch and all of them were retained by insurance companies. They were automatically engaged by the companies after the fire. There was nothing sharp about tnat. It was their job. “I am satisfied that the next-of-kin will get every consideration in this unfortunate matter,” Mr Watts added. The clause under discussion was that extending the time for making claims and commencing proceedings arising out of the fire.