UNDERWRITERS' INSURANCE

Evening Post, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 109, 8 May 1912, Page 2

UNDERWRITERS' INSURANCE

DEPOSIT MUST BE PAID. An appeal from a decision of Mi% Justice Sim in Ilio case of Dalgety and Co. ? Ltd., v. tho Solicitor-General was decided by tho (Jourt of Appeal to-day. The Court was asked by originating summons' to determine tho following question: If a company should assign pai*t of its benefits in a, floating or open policy iesued by Lloyd's underwriters, would that company be acting as agent for the underwriters, or would it be carrying on insurance business itself, and thus be liable for the deposit of £10,000? At the hearing Mr. C. P. Skerrett, K.C., with' him Mr. C. B. Morison, appeared for the company, and Mr. J. W, Salmond \ (Solicitor-General) defended iv person. In the judgment of the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout), his Honour said : ' "The whole contebb was narrowed to whether what tho appellant company did was v the carrying on of an insurance 'business. The company held applicant* applying for iiiburance of motor-cars insured, but it is said that they allow them to (share in the cover of an open policy which they hold < in London and that thait is not carrying on the business of insurance. " What happens may be thus shortly summarised. A person who has a motorcar Or some other like vehicle can ap*ply to the appellant*. This application, is in writing, and the form used is headed 'Proposal for Insurance of Automobiles,' under open policy taken out by Dalgety and Co., Ltd., London, with j Lloyd's. Tho particulars of /cars to be | covered are given and the ' particulars j of insurance required. A premium ie paid and the company issues a cei-tificate of insurance signed by the manager 'of ■the company. This certificate states, inter alia: 'This ib to certify that the following interest (as described in Proposal Form signed by the owner, dated ), is insured in London under open policy taken out by Dalgety and Co., Ltd., ■ of 96, Bishopsgate-streot Within, London, E.C. "Ib is admitted that from the date of the issue of ihe certificate of insurance an insurance takes effect. I fail to understand what this is but carrying j on the bueinetrS of insurance. Tho ' owner was uninsured so far ac his automobiles were concerned when he entered the company's office. He »ighs his pro posal, pays his premium, gets his certificate of insurance, and leaves tho offic*? an insured owner. What has the com- | pany done? It has insured his machined. Surely this mode of carrying on i 3 an ! insuianco business? Whether the owner can sue the underwriters in London or elsewhere does not alter the ftw;t thut au insurance has been effected in New Zealajid, and tho owner ha 3as a. proof of his insurant'e-yUtty, holds his contract of insurance in the certificate ifitm*^. It is. in niy opinion, quite beside the question whether tho relationship between tho insured and the insurer is what is called under an open policy or not. He has become an insured person by virtue of an agidoment, or contract, made in New Zealand. What is called the ' open policy ' iv a peculiar document and nob iv the usual form of an insurance policy. It ib, it is csaid, tin authority or something equivalent to a deed of appointment. Whatever it may be called, the company injures under it— that is, makes binding contracts of insurance in New Zealand of goycib in New Zealaud, and that is, iv ,my opinion.' carr\ ing on buMtiesb in NVw Zealand, and the uiKkirwrittirs by the condition^ endorsed on what u< called tlu> certificate of insurance provide lot 1 the company acting tor them as an insmor would ucV, settling disputes, etc. Tho undcittiitois becoiue tlio iusuiei*." »Sir # .Foflliua Williams and Jiusticos Denniston and Cooper coiicuiK-d, «md the appeal wa* dismissed.