COURT OF APPEAL

Evening Star, Issue 21055, 18 March 1932, Page 12

COURT OF APPEAL

CLAIM AGAINST INSURANCE COMPANY [Pbs United Press Association.] 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 wife, came into collision with another car, owned by the Todd Motor Company. In the collision L. M. Cordery, of Hawera., manager of the Todd Motor Company, was injured, and his employers were deprived of his services for thirteen weeks. Proceedings were subsqucntly brought in tho Supreme Court at Now Plymouth by tho Todd Motor Company against Joyes, claiming the cost of repairs to the car and Mss suffered by ib on of bodily injuries to its servant, and judgment was entered for the company in tho amount claimed, £540 6s sd. The National Insurance Company has been nominated as third party insurers in respect of Mrs Joyes’s ear, and a comprehensive cover with that company had also been taken out by her. Joyes then claimed to he indemnified in respect of the Todd Motor Company’s claim by the insurance company, which, whilst admitting liability under tho comprehensive policy in respect of that part of the 1 odd Motor Company’s claim which consisted of damage to the motor car, denied liability on any ground in respect of the balance of the claim, £248 6s sd, which consisted of the salary paid to Cordery whilst injured and the expenses of appointing a temporary manager at Hawera during that period. Joyes thereupon brought an action in the Supremo Court at Wellington claiming that bo was entitled to bo indemnified by the insurance company in respect of the balance of the Todd Motor Company’s claim either under tho Motor Vehicles (Third Party Risks) Act, 1928, or under tho comprehensive policy. The matter was heard before Mr Justice Ostler in December last, who, holding that Joyes was entitled to bo indemnified under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1928, held that it was unnecessary to answer tho question whether he was also indemnified under the comprehensive policy. Tho appeal is now brought from that decision.