FIRE INSURANCE CASE.

New Zealand Times, Volume LXVI, Issue 3311, 18 December 1897, Page 2

FIRE INSURANCE CASE.

On the third day of hearing 1 , the fire insurance case. Bank of Australasia and O. W. Oldham v. the North German Fire .Insurance Company, in which the plaintiffs claimed >2750 —£250 under one policy and £SOO. under another—was terminated so far as the special jury was concerned in the Supreme Court yesterday. The plaintiff Oldham hod a slaughtering and meatcanning works near Patoa. The establishment consisted of a main building and a considerably less valuable structure known as the digester building. A fire occurred at itho.‘>works in June of this year. Tfio .main, building was destroyed, and the digester building damaged. The defendant oompany refused to pay any part of the insurance money, alleging misrepresentation and fraud. The questions involved may be gathered from the issues submitted to the jary,~whioh, with the jury’s answers were as follow: — What buildings were insured by policy No. 87031 (being the policy for £350), and what was the amount of' the insurance on each building respectively ?—Main building £2OO,■ called No. 1 in this pilioy ; digester building. No. 2 in this policy, £130., : (Admitted by parties.) : What building did proposal 26197 (being the policy for £500) propose' an insurance for ?—Main building. Did contained in such last proposal and the plan accompanying Such proposal induce the defendant Company to believe that it was asked to insure the same building as that upon which it already bad a risk of £l5O ?—No. Did the'proposal as signed by Oldham represent that the building was insured for £ ISO only ?—No. If so,’ had the defendant Company knowledge at the time of the issno of the policy or any renewal receipt that it was subject to an insurance for £2O ? —Yea. Did the said Oldham state in his proposal for 200UC (being the policy for £300) that the stock in trade in the buildding was insured for £SOO? —No, Or did he represent that his stock in trade generally was insured for £SOO ?—Yea. VYas such stock only insured for £3oo? Stock in trade generally was insured for £3OO. Was there a mutual mistake between plaintiff Oldham and the defendant Company as to what building was intended to be insured by proposal 26917 (being the proposal for £500) ? —No. Did the plaintiff at any time after the fire, with a view to obtain the whcle insurance provided by policies 87031 and 200146 (being the two policies now sued upon) represent to the defendants’ agents that all the, buildings insured by those policies were connected and formed one compact building ?—Yes. If so, was such representation made fraudulently and with the intention of obtaining the, insurance money on a building that was not burnt ?—No. . Did the plaintiff bank make any fraudulent representations or fraudulent claim in respect ,of the buildings burnt or the insurance thereon.—No. Was : the claim made by Oldham’s declaration fraudulent, and, if so, in respect of which policy ?—No.’;*; What amount, if any, are plaintiffs, or either of them, entitled to recover ? First, in respect of main building, JETOO ; second, in respect of digester building, £SO; third, in respect of interest, 6 per cent, from date of fire. Mr Justice Edwards entered judgment for the plaintiffs, reserving leave to the defendant Company to move to set aside the judgment and have verdict of nonsuit entered, provided notice of motion be given within, seven days; proceedings to be stayed in the meantime, and, if notice of motion given, then until such notice is disposed of; costs according to scale, with allowance, for extra days of trial. Mr Hislop appeared for the plaintiffs, and Dr Findlay for the defendant Company.