Disputed Liability of Insurance Companies

Manawatu Times, Volume LVI, Issue 7107, 16 March 1933, Page 8

Disputed Liability of Insurance Companies

OHAU CROSSING INCIDENT.

Per Press Association,

WELLINGTON, Last Night.

In the Appeal Court action, the T. and G. Society and the Commercial Union Assurance Co. v Johnson and Johnson, tho case for the Commercial Union was continued by Mr R. L. A. Cresswell to-day. Ho submitted that Mrs Johnson by delay in taking steps to enforce the alleged claim, destroyed certain chances of recovering the moneys which the companies had paid out to Johnson.

Mr A. B. Sicvwright for the respondent, Mrs Johnson, said that in this ease the facts of all arc important in each caso where there had been ratification and estoppel. He urged that the facts must be scrutinized carefully and each case dealt with on its own particular facts. In the caso before the Court, after a trial extending over many days and the production of much evidence, Mr. Justico Reed expressed himself satisfied that tho receipts had been forged. That finding should not bo disturbed.

Tho Chief Justico (Sir Michael Myers): On that point wo need not trouble you Mr. Sievwright. We all agreed thero would bo no justification for us to differ from the trial judge’s finding that the receipts ivere forgeries. Mr Sievwright then dealt with the question of alleged damnification, i.e:. That appellants were placed in a worse position by Mrs Johnson’s delay. He submitted the only evidence of damnification was that of Johnson whose evidence had been proved to bo absolutely unreliable and should be rejected by the Court, As to whether or not the accident came within the terms of the Commercial Union policy, ho submitted that there was ample evidence in support of the finding of the trial judge “that Mrs Johnson’s injury was occasioned by her jumping out of the car and the train running over her foot. That clearly constituted an accident in direct connection with the motor car and consequently was covered by the policy.

Counsel submitted that tho evidence of the locomotive foreman was conclusive in proving that the accident to Mrs. Johnson had occurred when she was jumping from the car. She liad sustained an “accident” within tho terms of the policy and was entitled to recover. In any case, however, tho insurance companies had admitted liability and they could not now repudiate her claim because they had paid the wrong person. Admission of the liability and payment, even though made to the wrong person, constituted the companies and Mrs. Johnson debtor and creditor respectively, preventing the companies from raising technical defences based on clauses of tho policies. To tho defence of the companies that the dispute had not been referred to arbitration by Mrs. Johnson, ho submitted that “dispute” meant a dispute as to liability, and liability had been admitted by the companies at an early stage of the proceedings. The Court adjourned until to-morrow.