BURNING OF MOTOR CAR

Northern Advocate, 15 September 1932, Page 8

BURNING OF MOTOR CAR

LITIGATION ENSUES. INSURANCE IN QUESTION. SUIT AGAINST COMPANY. (Special to “Northern Advocate.”) HAMILTON, This Day. Alleging that the defendant company failed to complete the insurance on a motor car which he purchased from them and which was subsequentlv destroyed by fire, Archibald .Fohn Cameron, land salesman, of Hamilton, proceeded against Dominion Motors, Ltd., for the recovery of £241, before Mr Justice Smith in the Supremo Court vesterday.

Counsel for plaintiff stated that his client, purchased a motor car on the hire-purchase system from the defendant company. He traded in another car as part payment and also paid £IOO in cash, and gave a promissory note for £lls for 12 months for the remainder, The ear was to remain with the defendant company until the actual payment of £lls, with interest. It was a term of the agreement that plaintiff should insure the car against loss so long as moneys remained owing to the defendant company. Counsel claimed that defendants wrongfully neglected to forward proposals for insurance, and failed to complete insurance on the car, About December 27, 11)31, the car was destroyed by fire. Prior to that plaintiff was unaware that insurance had not been completed, and as the result plaintiff lost .£3OO, both, the. insurance company and the defendant company disclaiming liabilitv.

Plaintiff gave evidence that he had not'ljeen.nskod for the premium, which irkn'hoi been paid until the morning the ear was found to be missing from his garage. A salesman for the defendant company assured him that the ear was insured. Cross-examined, plaintiff disagreed with counsel regarding the dates ho signed the hire-purchase agreement. Ho could not remember being present when the insurance proposal was filled in. Counsel: “Do you suggest the answers to the questions on the policy were invented?" Witness: “I don't know. T gave no information.” Plaintiff agreed that no account was sent to him for the insurance premium. Frederick Walter Leslie Rickard, Hamilton, manager for the defendant company, said Mr Cameron signed a promissory note and hire-purchase agreement on March 14, 1031, but not the insurance proposal. This was not signed by Cameron till December 22, when the ear was stolen. A few’ days later the premium was returned by the insurance company. Witness admitted he found a temporary insurance proposal for Cameron in his drawer, but this applied only when the' ear was on trial. Plaintiff Non-Suited.

Counsel for the defendant company said that a. blank insurance had been signed by plaintiff when he took a car out on trial prior to the sale. At the time there was a practice in existence unknown to the executive of Domim ion Motors, and to the head office of the Insurance Company, under which a free temporary insurance was given by the local manager, of the insurance company to the local manager of Dominion Motors. There was no suggestion of an express undertaking to effect an insurance on the car plaintiff finally purchased. After hearing further evidence His Hpnour said he was not satisfied that an insurance proposal had been really taken out, with respect to the ear sold to plaintiff and afterwards lost by fire. ‘Plaintiff signed a hire-purchase agreement, under which he undertook to insure the cai’. He paid no premiums and received no debit notes for insurance. His Honour said he had • searched through plaintiff’s evidence in vain for a statement that there was a definite undertaking by the defendant company to insure the car. In the circumstances plaintiff must be nonsuited. His Honour reserved decision on the question of costs.