CLAIM FOR INSURANCE

Greymouth Evening Star, 27 January 1914, Page 7

CLAIM FOR INSURANCE

A. N UAH ERE CASE

| At the Magistrate's Court, Greymouth, this morning, before Mr .1. G. L. Hewitt, S.M., :i case in which William Ross sued the Phoenix Insurance Company for the sum of £l5O was hoard.

.Mr ,M. Hannnn appeared on behalf of the claimant and .Mr F. A. Kitchingham on behalf of the Phoenix Company. | Mr Hannan stated that the ciaiiii was for £l5O, amount of insurance -on a building at Ngahere and the property of plaintiff. The Swelling had been burned down on or about the 14th or 15th of December, 1912. The fire had admittedly originated in wn adjoining building and had spread to Ross' building, both houses being unoccupied at the time. The claimant had notified the company of the lire, and shortly afterwards received a reply, dated January 28, 1913, in which it was stated that as the building bad been unoccupied for over a month prior to.the outbreak the insurance had become void and that the company could not pay on thai account, but an offer was made that if the building was re-erected within three months the company would pay £l5O on a building costing £3OO. Further nego- I tiations ensued and copies of letters between, the company and its agents were put in to show that the cost of the pro- | posed new building had. been reduced to £l5O, a modification of the terms, and provided the new building was erected on the old site. ' Later the company had , rose the point that the building had not been 40 feet distant from the "adjoining building, and if such had been the case asserted that the building would not have caught fire. Mr Hannan said it was admitted on the face of the policy that there had never been 40 feet of intervening space and averred that the company had been fully aware of this, as the premises had been insured continuously for 12 or 13 years. A new policy had, hdwever, been issued in 1910 on account of a reduction in the amount of insurance. This new policy had gone on and no objection made to it on the ground of "detached space." His client had, after fur_ (.her negotiations, put up a replace building on the agreement that progress payments were to be made by the company ns the work progressed. The building had been completed, but such payments had not been forthcoming, and his client now sued for the full amount oT" the in 6urar.ee. He called

William Ross, the claimant, who said he was a carpenter residing at Ngahere. The house was first insured about 12 or 13 years ago, and was insured with the same company continuously for fctiat period. It had been insured for £2OO until 1910, vTz., £l5O on the house and £SO on the furniutre. Witness shifted the furniture and notified the company. A fresh policy was then made -on the building for £l5O. Witness was quite satisfied in his own mind that there had never been 40ft bet\.**?s? the adjoining building. He signed the proposal not knowing it to specifically state that the insured building was detached 40 feet from adjoining buildings. If he Lad noticed the clause stating thede was 40 feet detachment he would not have signed the proposal; he was of opinion that the figures 'had not been filled in when he signed. One of the Mr Wicke3 (local agents) had visited the house on business long before the second policy was issued, and being further back from the road must have noticed the distances in going through the right-of-way. In 1912 he did not pay the premium until Way, or about three months after it was due, on account of its having been unoccupied. Between the time the last insurance ran out and the time he" paid the last premium lie told', Wickes that the house was unoccupied, and he said it would be all right so long as he locked the doors and windows. There was nothj ing definite said about the payment of money, but "he was told he could pay it when the house was again" occupied. , While the house was unoccupied witness | had no document or anything to show that the house was covered. ' To the Magistrate: \fftliess said he had thought the house was covered when lie was told to keep the windows and the doors locked "and it would be all right. Continuing, witness said he had no receipt until he paid the money in February- The house was occupied continuously up to about nine months before the fire." The adjoining house had been oc- ! cupied for two years, and so far as witI ness knew there was no insurance on the , latter. A representative of the company, j a stranger to witness, came up and took measurements of the right-of-way, which would show the. distance between the two houses, a short time after the ' fire had started in an adjoining building, which was all open and a sort of playhouse for young fellows. Mr Hannan put a question in regard to correspondence offering to pay a give.i amount on a building to be erected at a cost of £325. Mr Kitchingliam rose the point that this was irrelevant as it dealt with a question of contract after the fire, wlie-e----as the plaintfTf was claiming on the policy. Mr Hannan said he had received the papers from Wellington, and it was agreed to amend the claim to cover the objection | raised. William Ross continuing, said that after he got the'letter from the company of 28th January he was quite prepared and willing to accept a house as good as the one destroyed instead of the insurance. He was satisfied the house destroved could not be built for less than £350. Witness had been asked by the companv to build a house to_the value of £325. but late? he had been asked to build a house costing £l5O. Witness said he preferred that the company should carry out the work, but this the company had'declined to do. Witness said he had no monev to undertake the work of the new building, and was promised progress payments. From remarks from one of the agenfs he had understood that he need ; not be over particular as to the class ot building erected. Mr Wickes had pro- ' mised the progress payments, but after- ■ ward-, repuddiatcd them, slating that he : (Mr Wickes) had said he would make representations to the head office in regard to the progress payments. If witness had understood there were to be no pro- • cress payments he would have either sued , T- or the insurance or let the company put up the replace building. Witness sent in . n . rougli sketch of the bunding to Mr Wickes. The Court then adjourned till 2.30 ' pm.