MOTOR RISKS

Manawatu Standard, Volume LV, Issue 259, 30 September 1935, Page 8

MOTOR RISKS

THIRD PARTY LIABILITY. HIGHER PREMIUMS POSSIBLE. (By Telegraph.—Special to Standard.) WELLINGTON, Sept. 30. The financial results of the operation of the third party insurance pool for the first quarter of the current year have been so disastrous from the viewpoint of the insurance interests that they are becoming seriously concerned over the position, and are likely to approach tne Govenrment with a view to securing a change in tlip method of assessing damages in motor accident claims. As an alternative, it is likely that if the experience of the first quarter of the year is , continued throughout the period, instead of obtaining a 3s reduction in premiums, as was the case last May, motorists will have to pay a higher premium for renewal of this cover nine months hence. It is currently reported in insurance circles that claims for one quarter of the year are much in excess of 25 per cent of the total premiums received into the pool. When the universal third party risk policy was inaugurated by legislation, a premium of £1 for private cars was [estimated as being reasonable, and experience demonstrated - that the guess I was a good one, the claims totalling 86.11 per cent of the premium income. There was a drop in the subsequent two years, but in 1933 the proportion of claims rose to 85.88 per cent, involving payment of £196.789 out of a premium income of £229,133. Last year’s experience evidently justified the reduction in premiums, but within a few months this has been proved to be premature. The Transport Department, in presenting four years’ figures, suggested that they should be received with the utmost caution, and that a longer experience was necessary before figures could be obtained which would be typical of the third party business in all its ramifications. SYMPATHETIC JURIES.

Many New Zealand juries, it is suggested, are too prone to give verdicts based, not upon the legal position and the real merits of the claims, but more upon a sympathetic regard for the poor plaintiff, contrasted with a wealthy insurance corporation against whom he is claiming. Heavy damages, which insurance concerns maintain are out of proportion to the real merits of the case, have been awarded, and there is a feeling that insurance companies are not getting strict justice. The “hit and run” motorist who escaped without liability is now covered by the pool as a whole, claims being accepted in respect to motor accidents where it is impossible to produce the motorist. While this principle was welcomed as giving the public protection against cases of serious hardship, insurance companies are coming to the conclusion that it is capable of abuse, for reason that juries hear only one side of a case, whereas, if it were possible to produce the alleged offender, evidence might be available to show that the fault was not completely on one side. It is also feared that some of the damages awarded represent a penalty —which insurance companies have to bear —for the callousness of motorists who knock down a pedestrian and do not stop to render assistance. The insistence of the authorities in holding on to the system of changing the number plate every year is part of an undertaking to the insurance companies for their protection against claims in respect to unregistered cars.

A proposal is taking shape among insurance interests to suggest to the Government some means of securing greater uniformity in the decisions on motor accident claims, as there is a tremendous disparity between the amounts of damages awarded in different parts of New Zealand in respect to claims of similar character. An improvement could be effected by referring all claims to one Court, as is done in connection with workers’ compensation claims, which are dealt with by the Court of Arbitration.