INSURANCE OF MOTORS

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXIV, 26 March 1930, Page 8

INSURANCE OF MOTORS

PROBLEM OF INTOXICATION COMPANY HELD NOT TO HE liable JUDGMENT OF SUPR-EMU COUBT "The clause does exempt the company from liability when the motor vehicle is being driven by the insured himself whilst under the iiillucn.ee of liquor." In those words Mr Justice Reed summed up his reserved decision delivered in New Plymouth against Maurice Ingram Jury, dory, who had been convicted of drunkenness while in charge of his car. had proceeded against the North Island Motor Union Mutual Insurance Company for £ll4, insurance money said to In- due lor motor-car damages. The case was hoard ai the last silting i.l' the Supreme Court at. New Plymouth (reports the "News"). The insurance company was allowed £VI 12s .(.sis and disbursements lo be ascertained bv the registrar. '

His Honour said the short point for decision was the 1 interpretation of tho following clause in an accident insurance policy: "No liability shall attach to the company under this policy in respect of any loss, damage or liability occurring, inter alia, While any motor vehicle in connection with which indemnity is granted under this policy is, with the knowledge and/or consent, of the insured or of anv person lo whom indemnity is granted by this policy. being driven by or is in charge ol any person under the influence of intoxicating liquor." The policy was in the common form used by the company, commented his Honour, but its terms regarding Jn*y were modified or varied by marginal rubber-stamped warranties and conditions. In this manner certain, benefits contained in the printed form wore warranted to be excluded. Particularly was it provided that, "in consideration of the deduction of 10 per cent, from tho premiums otherwise payable, it is hereby declared and agreed that this insurance shall ipso facto cease to be in force if at any time the car insured herein is driven by any other person than M. I. Jury, notwithstanding anything herein contained lo the contrary."

SPECIAL INDEMNITY CLAUSE The clause lo which this referred was in the following terms; "It is hereby agreed and declared that the indemnity under section 2 hereof (third party risk) shall, subject to the limitation of the extent thereof above set out, extend to and include the indemnity of any relative, or friend of the insured while driving the said motor vehicle with the insured's consent, provided such relative or friend is a duly licensed driver and is not otherwise indemnified in respect of his liability: provided, also, that such relative or friend shall observe, fulfil and be subject to the terms, conditions and exceptions of the policy." Tho effect of the marginal provision was to exclude from the benefits of the indemnity the persons mentioned, continued the judge. The clause in question in the proceedings covered the case of any"persons indemnified by being permitted by tho insured to drive whilst in a state of intoxication. It was contended for Jury that it applied to such persons only and not to the insured himself when driving in a slate of intoxication. Tf that were so. the clause was in effect repealed by the. marginal provision. But his Honour did not think its meaning could be altered in that Way. In order to arrive at the true construction it must be considered as it originally stood before the marginal modifications. It could not mean one, thing then and, without any direct repeal or amendment, have a different meaning caused by modifications of a different part of the policy. Disregarding the modifications tho clause itself was, of course, very clumsily drawn, but his Honour thought its meaning was sufficiently clear. The whole difficulty in construction. was caused by the words "with the knowledge and/or consent of the insured, or any person to whom indemnity is granted by this policy." Eliminating those words, the clause read : "While any motor vehicle in connection, with which indemnity is granted under this policy is being driven by or in charge of any person under the influence of intoxicating liquor." The inserted words protected the insured from the consequences of one of the. relatives or friends referred lo becoming; intoxicated while driving the car, by provision being made that knowledge or consent on the part of the insured must be proved, but it in no way affected the insured's responsibility for his own acts. The only objection to this construction was that the. words "with the knowledge, and/'or (tonsent of the insured" were not apt words lo describe an act done by tho insured himself. It mjght be conceded that that was so, but after all they did not in terms exclude the insured, and an act done by himself was in. fact with his knowledgo and consent.