LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 122, 15 February 1908, Page 7

LAW REPORTS.

„SUPREiVIE COURT. CIVIL BUSINESS. PHd?iN'ix ASSURANCE CO. v. UNITED < j INSURANCE CO. > SEQUEL TO; CLERICAL ERROR. 'iTho" civil- -sittings ..were resumed yesterday. doming, Ins Honour Mr. Justice .Ohapnian taking his seat at 10.30 o'clock. . - ■ Tho case sot down rfoi-healing M.as ~that between tho Phoenix' Assurance Company,and the United lnsuranco • Company, Ltd,, ..i, claims for'£G2o -alleged -to, bo-duoion a-let insurance policy.' --.The.-statement of claim set forth that since, the year 18991 the plaintiff i company - hadgranted [>qlicies .of insurance; to the- Kaiapoi. Woollon: Ltd., ■ a trading• company carrying oil .business m Chnstchui cli. Such, lnsutanoes worp-.-iellected on: a : building in , Casliel' Streob. used as a wareliouso and cloth- . ing factory; wlnch-'ivas subsequently destroyed by.firewUeforO'tha year 1903 fronvthe,yearlo!)9. the-defendant Company granted: to,.tho i plaintiff 'company a' re-msurance: policy. | ■for,- building,:which , was well known, to" the defendant company, »nd ; in-the;policy.:of re-msurance was correct/ly jdescribed.'as bi;aig:;''attachtd,.-' that isj'iibt soparated-by any intorval.from the lieighbouiing building.' - On November- 5,-1903, the dea policy/ romsunng: tno sunv-of ' £050, and :this policywas renewed fromitime-.to-time untiLOctober lj'1906:: On:Novehibof':li;:l9o6,S the: defend-. ' ant' cginpanyv issued-'..'a/, policy jof ;• reinsurance : for';the': sum (of. 1 £620 ..in, ; respect Vof;,tbe;'sanie'i buildihg/^oiln' 1 ;; the <proposal:, if6r vthisV'last-: mentioned ;ro-insuran'cbf,delivered by,tho plaintifE 'company .'.to ithb defendant company- by . 'ina'dyertenceviarid-. ■ the's buildingwas 'detaehed about, fire feet.''.-.Such description iwa's ) contrary; .toVfact;.as ; the dq-; In the policy-, for such inSurancoHHe same' miStrtke wasralso, ■ ii-iade.'viiTho 'rplaintiff! the: words' ' "detachpd/' abbutfViTb.i.fcet'.'; ; in lieu of tho:, word mutualivmisr,; -tako ofr'the.compa'ny,' : nnd:if : the Game were . material-tthe-'policy /oughti.toUbe-i'ectified. in; accorddhce ;with tho. : fafct ahd; the mutual-in-. : tention!':'of- tho"partiesj-f/The (insertion-'.of- the ■ ; about-ifive:feet";.in ; libti of, "attached";made no;difference in the','amount. •- o£ :thojj)'rpmiuni 'or itlie - acceptability of ; tho risk.; .-The! policy - remhinod in force till .Octob'ei- -If-1907, when..- the .'same 'was renewed : till Octdhor> 1 DClS;;'■;on . November J3, lflOis . while 'the ipoficyj: was, in:i force? the": buildings < and .contents' We're^destreyed .by ,;'firc.., The ,

defendant cdmpanyfha'd.Refuted to pay to the plaintiff company i'.thd amount/'of -the rs-insuiv anCe, i iwhoref6re'g'ndgment' j for-£S2o.and-in-! ' toresfc 'at : 6 per cent.-per. annum fr6m>l)ecem-; tliealterna- , Mvo thatV tlie' pOlicy/.ba.'rectified-.by striking out theKwoMs' l ''dotachcd iabout-five 'andiiiscribingan-'liou:tliereof.the'.word.'"at-tached;'';/anal, thereafter that .' the t.plaintiff- . may. havo ; judgment'i.for;'tho amount, claimed -/and';tii teresfcCVirip>>ii u:viM. 't\n^vC : 7 Tho, statement .of i defence denied that- the buildingl/rorinsuredvCivas Sthe which! was (lest ro yed'":by,:firoif~ -;Tlie!:-ro-iiisuranco: policy -did not' relate to a/building described, as. "attached.;!Asi a Eurfcheh'defenco-the deferidant /company' saiclthat)^at'."itli'e:i time/of thareUnsurance/tho-'Kaiapoi.Woollcn-Maiiu-: facturinjg.j Ltd., jvvero .theowners and occlipiers : .'buildings' fori thQrpurpbE&bfatsbusmess'arid'bothoftHem were .situated im/Cnihel/Street;V'-Qne : bfjjjthe about'-ttoimddleVq^the'^blbck£and the>'6ther •^ n ?;v building:(used J as.:a' -warehouse and clothing* factory? ands was !sitiiated'/at ; ;a;dis^ : J ;of J: vy ards-- froiii'.the .'-lastanGri-' -By.': Madras,.':9treet;-;and: building- Was-'de- v tache&'iVW^ the aetaphedM ; Building"vdii thV end s of-'tho Btrect which the uofondant company intended an 4r«d i mjJ»<(uk'any.--mwt«ko"''on'tt-?i '-part" re-insura.: For.'a-further'dofenco the'-defend-'' ant company said tho plaintiff company did' intendjbeforo.submitting:the. proposal for'reinsuralico . ; £o the defendant', company to' reinsure the "detached" building at the end of t fyieot. ' i ,M. Chapman, KC (Kith him Mr Jlo ison) appeared on behalf of the plainfW of Chnstchurch,

S Vi? T mng on behalf of the Fortas iTn tl« f » cl i a,m P ut Jn two IK? tK»;« first pkce the PlalntifFsi snid ■ r Mere was a rc-insurai.ee.pohcy - on , d,e buddingi -which . was destroyed/ arid on that • {J® »:• and 'in - the *. second "plaice - plaintiff <i sn'rl ... on it, could, havo'iVrectified/ ' The qiiesi 1 ti°n,at ; ;issupiwas.-whether,.thebuildirig\ which : the ono.referred to in the fh^SVv ti'- ! .°M rie , d L t w ,° tu'iaiiigsV-ono in ■ end otffer' at, th£ ' =' tho Plaintiff ?' l! fast-mentioned . Dui^ingj^TYh^c was destroyed iby; fife/' but 7Tnr^ OTe F( Vither bnildinrr - Unfortunately;, the/clerk ; toVwtom^S' ' ; J ntei^ a ! ,a >' he inserted 'tho ' Tj : detached. as .".per plan.", ! 'No "' harm v of. the whole • • W'™?Biat; the -end fof • tho/.blocEl- TKe'erriir' : ®atter of fact tho Kaiapoi Woollen Comuanv im fcS-ff'' P revi ous''insurance. In » S °K V C !tf S and clothinglactory,'. but tho mistake referred to nrKvv usly was not rectified. ' The iVords Mn P tl proposal, "detached;; about ' f ' ■ ° in t^ riC '" : ''f ra^c t e *j;V- : p .®?'bles,- ' insuranco -' elorl r " in the emplpy.of .company.-Kavu evidence, tkt ;.n •pctoLer, 1903,'w1,0nap r o Sw? , ifromvthe Kaiapoi Woollon Lompany, -. Ltd., ,ho - ivas not- familiar , witli °? v " ed ; b y ! thoi 'H.V inado a-: mist(iko-!by! inserting -'in ; tho' ; policv . P o r jnan'.''\'Witnoss, nf th ■{;' ' ''offsretl the' re-insurance of _the .defohdant company;'.' 1 'witness'.''.stated tfikUfr bU F? ' J» st before the fire,,it eamo to tht thatcthe' binlding 'on : ,which ivas '-'the' ■S-Jw- '?- tboa ß lbt^th.o';buildini':'at'-tKo:Pnd-k„° , st f eot - : -%- mistake-' thoro ■ rnL, ' ' nSU^ nea!ty,t^?Ndrth Queensland' Company; on the .wrong building. ' ;Mo- mis^ 'a'-o, was .verbally..rectified.' -v •..

: ';-o-exammed,■■witness stated• .thdt ■ he. was always aware .that the plaintiff company had p. risk on only one of the, buildings. sectary' to' the Kaiapoi •^fjl^.poMpny^tdjVwaeposisd: that tljri buildmg,in ;the -middle* of the- block was a warehouse,, and-that the premises'' at' tho'chd of ihe block,weroia clothing factory. It was the first-mentioned'building; whioh was insured with tho plaintiff company, who' never had a risk;on tho-other building ,j; " . EdwardJ Talbot,;insurance' clerk in the employ_ of tho plaintiff, company,' Stated that in.1,)03 lie signed' a;re-insurance proposal with .the defendaijti-.company, to whom a copy_; of _ the - schedule • was, h'c thowht'; supplied; • When hor; signed,the; proposal he know that tho Milding referred to was the one whicb, ; was. afterwards destroyed by liro; ni t, lo '' -Australian Aliianco office; Ohas.'.'Pearep^manager of Levin and Co.'s riftiiranco';, iDepartme'nt, . John J. J t -manager ;!;Wellington Branch Jfa- • insurance Company, G. - -'.- A . f • :,lerc ' al Union office; David A'. Abe'rcrom..f . (onoral manager,, in New Zealand of,the 11 ;Queeiislahd Insurance: Co., and' John -.i alter llrindlay,; general manager, .of the State Fire Insurance : tbat the" irordsi..';'iii; lieu,. of" ; ,"on : ■ a policy /meant that the same risk was being taken'as under the previous policy. . Tiiis : concluded llic' caso'for, tlio plaintiffs: Mr. Harper.'briefly outlined ;tlio caso for tho defence. He Said fchat;tlie defendant com--pany. would bo ablo to substantiate in every

respect what hail been", set;iip as 'There-was, lie contended, no common intention on tho part of tho plaintiff Company's i Ollicers to insure the.-," attached-^ On ; tho -other, hand;' the .'defendant company's officers -wero under -no ' liusapprohcn--.61011. It was,.the l , builtlilig which they agreed to, re-insure. .Counsel proceeded to Call evidence. ■ ,- i - • ''dailies 11. Cameron,' district, .scerotary . at -Duiiodin ' for tho : 'defendant. Company, de- , posed that- previously he-'actetl for tile Com-, pany. at C'hnstehurcli.; Oil October'l,'ll)l)6, ■ .■■(ho,: risk- on : a • building' belonging to the kaiapoi Woollbii' Company,' aiid . Sumatcd .in tho'middlo of- a block in Cashel' Street,'' ex- ' pireH. Shortly afterwards, witness xliot I'Cebles, who 'is 'in /tho .'.employ of'plaintiff, company, and- they had a conversation aboilt thejprop'er.ty. i;)Vitnpss told liini that he did . not,want to loso the line, andvwould be glad to renew.' - , ! Ho -understood 'Peebles to 'say . .that.if he could not givo him-a lino! on that buildingjlie would givo him one oil ...to,other.. Subsequently, thp plaintiff company "bent • along,i-a-.-.proposalrelating to ; a, Kaiapoi '■Woollen - Company property, ' .ivhich : was do-' 'scribed.- as " detached.'", It .was"the'practice' ,K;hiSiOihcOit<)' ; seud ; on all. propnsals.to VVel";liugtbii.*; . Jieforp. doing so in ;this instance, witness..went , 'along ; and.,inspected -.tho pro-. ■p'eHyj'at i.the- end:-.ofvt-he' block.' Ho-drew- a plan,, which <he attached: to tho proposal; 1 before .spndings it ,on; to Wplliiigtolii'Witness' considered- that., ho; was. accepting.a : risk on . tho detached." building 'at:-the end, of the Wjck, . aiid; not- to 'the attached " building in'.tho, middle .'of. the, block, . Ho-wa,s in' Duii.'edin. a. year : later .'wheii -,tho.';policy" was .re'It- \v;as tlid T ;\6ustbrri l .at' ; th6'\ Christ;ch'urch i: . and.' 'Dimedin ■'diliccs 1 to put the: words :'"-iti ! lieu of "' on ; a" tooktho place-,of; ono',issued, to' the "same" party,' "even if-:tha'policy did not relato 'to the saind' pio»erty.. ''Ibis was "done-for tho information pF'tho-head' office to 'show: that':the provibiis ! polity ! had-'la'psed. - Subsequently, -in'.'February,- -1907; witness took-Mr: Jamieson; tho resident secretary' in Wcllmgkm-'fer '.the'.'d'e-' fepdant company, around to the building at the end of tho:block;on a ris.it of inspection. A. month later the company accepted a proposal for rc-insuraiico on a buildiiig ribxt to the lCaiapoi Woollen Company's: " attached property in the middlo of.the block: If thecompany had ' had - a big lino, on tho. Kaiapoi ..iVooJlon'Conipan.) J " attached-"- building- it "Would'nob have accojpifctl it, but if tho risk jyerpa small orio it mjght"liave''d6rid-56.. t 'The head office'of the 'plaintiff company, wrote .asking jf-the company hud any risk which 'Would be likely to be aifected in.case of.fire in.the building, in reforencei to 'which- they ;had a'propbsar : for ; re-ihsurance, ;and a replySent. : •'Cross-ex-amined, ■ witness stated that' he' always understood ! the building ! a't tho end of tho'Dloclc'was' a.warehouse'.- ■i'' '■: '

Andrew Duncan,' district .'secrotairy, "■Christ'plilii'oh 'branch of: tho North; Queensland Com-' 'paiiyj. deposed that he accoptcd a ro-insuranco from: thb plaintiff, '.company oii' tho Kniapoi ,'W.oollen Company's .'' detachcd " building, .to'i taken' by : Mr.;Peebles,; ono of.-the'" plaintiff company's,.servants'.-// Sub-' sefluentlyy witness, Bnowod. his company's in•sijectbr■ ovet-th'6 building. Later ~6&i 'jritiioss "got. into 1 communication -with tho plaintiff Company, wlio_'informed. him -that ar\mistako had bocuvmude,- ; :iind: that .'tho i reinsurance' Miich: theiplaintiff -company.-sought from hia ,company related, to i tho.r.Kaiapoi-'.Woollen .Company's';:" attached 'building-:,,in., tho middlo of -tho block., .y James S.>. Jamieson, resident secrotaryin Wellington for. tho defendant'company,: also gave, ovidonce. ;■

. His . Honour ; onqnircd of ' counsel: Trhen ;liey 'proposedto;^conduct'.argumont'.-iii'', tbd CaseX--.'::;'.'; ■i:: Mr.' Chapman said; it>as' jiot unljlfoly.'that tlvo'jCasoi'would: bb'Vrbinbyedf mto/the/ Court', of Appeal:' •..'.-J His Honour: That might bo preferable. In;any ! oaso; ;it would appear that it Will go t.b;;tlie: Higher Court.' I shall adjourn .tbo' caSo iuritil 'tho i morning, ' .wlioli ' counsel'' can . ihtimate;;s whatj;''ddpisigjt < the^- ; -^fe ! ai;fivcd:

'.. The hearing of tho actioii Michael DufTy. ■ v.AV. J. Hardi.e, a claim, for al-' Jegod to bo duo, has been postponed Until tho ; May.blttings.;v. f:' ; T .;; .-.. i