INSURANCE ON A CAR

Northern Advocate, 24 September 1927, Page 11

INSURANCE ON A CAR

| ' CLAIM FOR £4OO. NON-SUIT DISALLOWED. “TRAPS FOR THE UNWARY. 15 AUCKLAND, This Day. A claim for £4OO insurance on an Arnistiong-Siddelcy motor car, which was burned on the road over Mount Messenger last May, was made by Evelyn Mulliner against the North British and Mercantile Insurance Company in the Supreme Court. The ear was bought in February 1925, for £405, and in 1920 was bought by Mr J. L. »Scott, who took out a policy with the defendant company. Scott sold the car to plaintiff in the following September, and the accident occurred when plaintiff and Mr and Airs 'Scott were touring last May. The clutch of the ear. began to slip. Scott got out to repair if . and the car went over ,a slight bank, caught fire and was burned.' •. ■

The insurance company refused to pay, on the ground of breaches of conditions of the policy.

Mr Finlay asked for a non-suit, on the ground that there were at .least two mis-statements of fact in .the insurance proposal, which voided the policy. •Mr Bcott had. stated in the proposal that he had never had a previous accident with a car, but he now said he had had an accident with a Ford sedan.

Mr Justice Stringer said that if that sort of objection were to be raised, it was mailing,.motor- car insurance a trap. He was, surprised that such an objection should be taken. • ’ -

Mi- Fimay said the principal objection Avas that .the price paid was represented at £450. His Honour declined to grant a nonsuit, paying that the question regarding a previous accident referred specifically to accidents followed •••by a ! *■ „ claim on an insurance, company. In his opinion, £275 was a fair and reasonable estimate .of the Value of the car at the time of its .destruction, and he gave judgment; for £275, with costs as per scale.

As there was at least one point about which he had some .doubt, he Avould give his opinion in Whiting, with a view to a case being stated for appeal. ■

“1 should like to give the Appeal Court in opportunity of expressing ftp opinion as to the fiifttality of thOSO contracts of insurance &ith these,cOh* Jitions and clauses tthltih/.to toy mihd, present a aeries of ttapS to unyraty insurers/ ’ he said.. The .appeal might he the means of bringing about legislation, which he .thought -very:,-deair-. able K in order that people.' might where they were when.they upoji thiSe insurance contracts. Ipj Would throw, the ,onua on the defendant company, if it chose, to matter to the higher court, ;

In commenting’ on another aspect isl the case, his Honour said that ance companies were no- doubt swindled by the insured, but it say the least of it, inadvisable W. troducc that element into a case uttio* the' company hud specific such as would justify’.'ilnlir definite charge! Inuendo ‘ iix these ma|? ters was very undesirable.—Press-MmS - i •. «. ,