TAPPER v. NEW ZEALAND ACCIDENT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 10619, 14 March 1896, Page 3

TAPPER v. NEW ZEALAND ACCIDENT

INSURANCE COMPANY. TO THE EDITOR.

Sib, —Bab for the short paragraph in this morning's issue (evidently inspired by the company) to the effect that " it transpired during the hearing of the case that the company had offered me £24," I bad intended to let this matter to drop, but I cannot allow this liberal (?) company to have it all their own way. What I offered to take, or what the company offered to pay was not allowed to be mentioned during the hearing of the case.

The local agent of the company, knowing my dislike to be troubled with the Magistrate's Court and my wish to get away on my business, liberally offered me half what I offered to take, or a quarter what I was fully entitled to receive. Unfortunately there is no appeal against the verdict, otherwise, having gone so far, I would certainly go a little further, for the verdict is either £18 too much or £78 too little, and I would very much like the matter decided before the Appeal Court. When I was induced to take out the policy, five years ago, I was told by the agent, as an example of the liberality of the New Zealand Accident Insurance Company, that supposing I cut ray finger, which prevented me from writing, I had simply to send in my claim, when the company would pay the £6 per week so long as I was unable to write. The agent has admitted having considerable trouble with the policies taken one about the same time, and unless they mend their ways and realise that they ara supposed to pay claims as well as receive premiums, I fancy the trouble will still continue. —I am, &c.

Dunedin,' March 12,

B. A. Tappbb.