UNDERWRITERS' INSURANCE

Evening Post, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 71, 23 March 1912, Page 11

UNDERWRITERS' INSURANCE

QUESTION OF A DEPOSIT. Mr. Justice Sim delivered his reserved decision yesterday in the case of Dalgety and Co., Ltd., v. the Solicitor-General, an originating sum mons under the Foreign Insurance Companies Deposits Act, to determine the following question :—lf: — If a company should assign part of its benefits in a floating or open policy issued by Lloyd's underwriters, would that company be acting as agent for the underwriters, or would it be carrying on insurance business itself, aud^thus be liable for the"'l deposit of £10,000?. *f Mr V, C ' DID I \ Sk ? rretfc > X - C > wifc h him iur. U J3. Morison, appeared for the plaintiffs, and the Solicitor-General (Mr. J- W. Sahnond) defended in peram. The facts were agreed upon; It was contended by the Solicitor-General that tne underwriters were carrying on the business of insurance in New Zealand through the plaintiff company as their agents, and that a deposit of £10,000 should, therefore, be made by the underwriters in accordance with part 111. of the Foreign Insurance Companies Deposits Acts^ 1908. No such deposit had been%iade. In the alternative it was contended that the business of insurance was carried on in Tfew Zealand by the plaintiff company, and they should -therefore, pay the deposit. 7 .For the defence, it was argued that any such deposit was unnecessary on the ground that neither the plaintiff company nor the underwriters were carrying on the business of insurance in New Zealand. "This contract," said his Honour "is an open policy, and does not apply to any particular risk until the plaintiff has elected by declaration or certificate o apply it to that risk. The policy, by the terms thereof, made be made to a ? P - ly .i° ,M S°°<k belonging to tS plaintiff; (2) goods held by° it on trSt S bI «>- W) goods for which the plaintiff has orders to insure It is aTer^r 116 - hy the P laintiff °* a cerhficate in connection with any goods belonging to one or more of the thiee first-mentioned clauses does not amount to the making of a contract of ™^in New Zelkndt fS was not disputed by the Soh'citor-GeneraL Ihe question between the parties is as to -the effect of the issue of such a certincate on connection with goods belonging to the fourth class. ItTppears H^V 33 * 8 th * PlattiFh-B established as part of its business thl practice of receiving from iia clkmta and from members of the public m£ £n!l *' ? 1 T,°^ cars fire, theft, of «»IZ al IWacc^tance of such a proposal k effected by the issue by the plaintiff to the ownVol the particular car of a certificate©? in ff?«otitorSi,^; stasis by Jlr. Skerrett, operate merely to transfer to such owner a part of tL in surance effected by the Vmtiff Ihh fh- ff?^'?' Ifc aeera^ to ™ that the effect of the transaction is to estab hsh a contractual relation between tho underwriters and the owner of tho car la my opinion, the underwriters are carrying on the buftuuau of insurance in New Zealand, through the agency of the plaintiff, and are liable to make the deposit under part 3 of the Foreign InffiT Com P amea ' ' Deposits. Act, Messrs. Baldwin and Rayward, patent attorneys, 215-217, Lambton-quay Wellington, report that the following applications for letters patent of New Zealand have been filed during the week ending 19th March :—S. Philp, Wellington, strawberry protection; E. A Griffiths,- Auckland, alarm apparatus: 1. H. lox and F. J. Bowchier, Wellington, puttee; H. Hanson, Wellington. lead-headed nail machine ; G. W! Haycock, Wanganui, hose coupling ; W. Carson, Sydney, amalgamating machine ;' N. J. Daysh, Cartertou. teat cup ; A. S. Fleming, Brisbane, disinfectant distributor; J. W. llaidens, Little River, grass stripper ; H. Headland, Nelson, envelope ; J. IS. Salmon and E. W. Roj , Dunedm, pneumatic tyres j E. H. Noy, Auckland, washing boiler and frame. Advt. Be early in your choice of a rain coat. Our new season's goods jusfc opening up leave nothing to be deiked. Gco. Fowlds, Ltd.— Advt. '