INSURANCE RISKS

Hawera Star, Volume LIV, 27 March 1935, Page 5

INSURANCE RISKS

FULL RIGHTS OF REJECTION DECISION IN MINER’S CLAIM REFUSAL TO 1 INDEMNIFY (By Telegraph—Press Association.l AUCKLAND, March 25. The unrestricted rights of insurance companies to accept or reject risks submitted to them was at issue in proceedings that came before Mr Justice Herdman in the Supreme Court, A Waihi minor made a claim for compensation against the New Zealand Insurance Company, ami His Honour was asked to determine a preliminary question of law, whether the statement of claim disclosed any cause of action.

The plaintiff, George William Bates, a quartz miner of Waihi, represented by Mr O’Regan, claimed £224 19s for loss of wages against the New Zealand Insurance Company and a declaration that he had a right of indemnity.

Mr Richmond, who appeared for the insurance company, said Bates met with an accident in the Waihi mine in September, 1932, and was given compensa- | tion. In the following August he applied to be reinstated by the Waihi company, but he was refused, although he was willing to grant the company an indemnity under section 17 of the Workers’ Compensation Act, 1932. “I say we have a perfect right to refuse to indemnify in respect of any workman, healthy or otherwise,” said Mr Richmond, “and if as a result of that perfectly correct refusal a man loses his work that does not give him any cause of action.” Mr O’Regan submitted that it was not competent for an insurance company indemnifying an employer to single out a particular man and say it would give the employer no indemnity as far as that man was concerned. His Honour: They may have good reasons for refusing. Can you compel them? Is the New Zealand; Insurance Company under any obligation in law to furnish this indemnity? His Honour said he was not aware of any provision in the Workers' Compensation Act or of any principle in law that would justify him in deciding that the New Zealand Insurance Company was bound in any circumstances or in any event to accept any insurance proposal. Its business was to investigate and consider proposals brought before it. If it thought them unwise it was entitled to refuse. The statement of claim therefore did not disclose any cause of action, and the action must be struck out.