UNINSURED

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 7978, 8 December 1911, Page 4

UNINSURED

AX UNFORTUNATE MISTAKE. INSURANCE COMPANY NOT LIABLE. Reserved judgment In a somewhat uunsual insurance case was given «>' Honor the .Chief Justice (Mr Robert Stout) yesterday- . The plaintiff was David O Hara, faimer, formerly of Dannevirkc, now ot Masterton. He was represented by Mr E. J. Fitzgibbon. Mr T. "Voting represented the Victoria Insurance Company, defendants to the action, i Tho plaintiff, O’Hara. in April, 1910, I obtained four house properties situate at I Adams terrace, Wellington. The propei- ; ties were obtained from Easson Eros., Kilbirnie, and two of them were insured with the Queensland Insurance Co. tor and £325 respectively. Plaintiff, who resided in the country, appointed Easson Bros, to act as his agents in respect of the town property, collecting tho rents, paying rates, insurance, and other charges. Easson Bros., in ITm, entered into an arrangement whereby they were to resign their agency for tho Queensland Insurance Company and become agents for the Victoria Insurance company, transferring tho insurances in which they were interested so soon as the cover with the Queensland Company lapsed. Early in September, 1910, Eas6on Bros, prepared a list of expired policies and all those which, were to expire between September, 1910, and Juno, 1911, and handed this list to tho Victoria Insurance Company. Included in tho list wore the two policies on the houses mentioned, these policies expiring on November 2nd, 1910. Tho houses were destroyed by fire on January Bth, and plaintiff claimed that the defendant company had expressly or impliedly agreed to cover all the properties on the list, including these houses. iiis Honor, in delivering judgment, said that the contention of the plaintiff really was that the handing of the list tt ih© Victoria Insurance Co/s inspector was a request that the Victorian office would insure all the property on the list; second, that by not declining some of the property in tho list it must be assumed that the company insured it. "X am of opinion/’' said his Honor, “that, assuming that the evidence given by the piaini tiff and his witnesses is correct, there cannot be spelled out of the transaction any contract of insurance. First, it is ! clear between the parties that, before the company ever to insure, there had to be a proposal. There is no instance of any insurance without a proposal, and that was the usual custom between T Mr Easson and the company. Second, the company never had a proposal. Third, the company never assented to the insurance of these tw f o risks. Fourth, no premium was charged against Mr Easson for such risks. Fifth, the evidence shows that neither Mr Blair nor Mr Bell assumed that this was a request to insure this particular risk on Adams terrace..) The fact that on , tho list there were certain properties, no less than seven, already insured, shows that the list could not have been deemed a request to insure ail the properties in the list. Further, no name was given as the owner of'the property in Adams terrace, and the defendant company had no knowledge concerning the two properties said to bo insured in Adams terrace. *in my opinion, therefore, the plaintiff cannot succeed. It is exceedingly unfortunate he should be placed in this position, but I do not see that any blame can rest on the defendant company," 1 judgment was given for the defendant company, with costs according to scale, Witnesses' expenses and disbursements.