INSURANCE BROKERS’ RESPONSIBILITIES.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19261, 27 August 1924, Page 4

INSURANCE BROKERS’ RESPONSIBILITIES.

APPLES FROM NEW ZEALAND. (From Oub Own Coebbspondent.) LONDON. July x 9. A judgment of some importance affecting the responsibilities of insurance brokers was delivered in the case < Hamilton and Co. v. the Eagle, btar, an. British Dominions Insurance Company, Limited. Apples from New Zealand hubeen insured under a policy to which ,• prolongation of voyage clause was attached, providing that if the ships bringing th apples took more than a number of day ;• fixed in relation to each particular vessel. and in consequence of such delay, tin apples deteriorated, the insurance com pany would make good the loss. Dunn;, the currency of the insurance, dels, occurred in the case of three steamers. and the defendants declined to pay con sequent claims. A point in the defence was that there had been misrepresents Hon and concealment, since the plaintiffs-, when the fresh policy was placed, omiGoto state that the company which had been insuring the risk refused to continue thinsurance except with the prolongation clause omitted.

In his judgment, Mr Justice Bailhach • indicated that if the broker employed b effect the new insurance had placed ttu proposal'before the company without com ment, there could have been no cause fir complaint. But, unfortunately, the broke, did not know that the prolongation clause had been deleted from the old insurance and, iu good faith, showing the com pany's underwriter the old contract stated that it represented the existing insurance. Thereby a representation was. bo said, made which was “unnecessary and.was imtnie.’’. If, the learned judge declared, the broker bad pointed out tha! there had been trouble about the pro longation clause and it had been deleted the information would have influenced the defendants in deciding whether they would accept the risk at all; and, if sc. on what terms. Judgment was given fm the defendants. The moral seems to be that a broker need not, in submitting a risk to an underwriter, say what other underwriters had done, but that if b makes any. reference to an existing or previous insurance at all, he should disclose all the conditions on which th-_ risk had been underwritten.