CASH-VALUE POLICIES.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVI, Issue 8190, 3 August 1912, Page 8

CASH-VALUE POLICIES.

CASE EE-ARGUED IX COURT OF APPEAL. A life insurance case of much interest to policy-holders was re-argue<t before the Court of Appeal yesterday. Several important questions in regard to surrender value and endowment policies were enrolled. The plaintiff was Brenda Beatrice Reed, wife of Dr J. L. Reed, of Waipawa. She was represented by Mr C. H. Morison. Tho defendants were tho Equitable Lite Assurance Society of the United States, represented bv the Hon. H, D. Bell, K.C., with him Mr F. Xewmau.

The questions submitted to the court for determination were:

(1) tinder the terras and conditions of tho now guaranteed cash value policv was tho society required by the law of New Zealand to continue such policy in' force after the insured had ceased to pay premiums by applying tho surrender value for that purpose so long as such value existed unless the insured expressly notified tho society of a desire to cease payment, and required. the society to issue a paid-up policy in exchange for the original policy? (2/ was the plaintiff entitled ipso facto, without any notification on her part, on her ceasing to pay premiumsi to tho automatic issue of a paid-up endowment policy for the appropriate! amount stated on the policy under the| heading “Paid-up endowment granted! automatically unless other payment] selected"? , (A) Did the society under the law ofj New Zealand remain liable in the event) of the death of plaintiff so long as any/ surrender value existed to pay to tha representatives of plaintiff the full 1 amount of the original policy less on.y tho sums applied in payment of inteiest and premium? (4) Whether plaintiff, by accepting the policy issued, waived the benefit of the special statutoiy provisions for the benefit of policy-holders requiting life insurance companies to apply the surrender value in keeping the policy on foot? (5) Was such waiver (if any) effectual to discharge the society from its liability (if any) under the law of Now Zealand to apply surrender values to keep the policy on foot? When the case was first argued the court was composed of their Honors Sir Joshua Williams, Mr Justice Denniston and Mr Justice Edwards. Yesterday there were on the bench their Honors the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout), Sir Joshua Williams, Mr Justice Cooper, Mr Justice Denniston and Mr Justice Edwards. Sir- Joshua Williams said that the rea. eon they asked that the case should be re-argued was that there was not absolute agreement between the judges who heard it. There was, further, a decision of the High Court of the Commonwealth which apparently applied to this case and the question was whether that authority governed ■ the case. It seemed desirable that if they were to differ from that high authority the difference should be expressed by a more complete bench than that which sat forraerlv.

After hearing argument the court reserved its decision.