COURT OF APPEAL

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21600, 22 March 1932, Page 4

COURT OF APPEAL

THIRD-PARTY RISK

LIABILITY OP INSURANCE COMPANIES.

(Pee United Press Association.) WELLINGTON, March 21,

Further argument along the same lines as that advanced on Friday was placed before the Court of Appeal in the case of the National Insurance Company v. Joyes by counsel for the respondent this morning. After hearing counsel for the appellant in reply the court reserved its decision.

Bernard John Carlyon Joyes, of Stratford, draper, in October, 1930, whilst driving a car belonging to his wife, came into collision with another car, owned by the Todd Motor Company. In the collision L. M. Cordery, of Hawera, manager of the Todd Motor Company, was injured, and his employers were deprived of his services for 13 weeks. Proceedings were subsequently brought in the Supreme Court at New Plymouth by the Todd Motor Company against Joyes, claiming the cost of repairs to the car and loss suffered by it on account of bodily injuries to its servant, and judgment was entered for the company in the amount claimed, £540 6s sd. The National Insurance Company has been nominated as third party insurers in respect of Mrs Joyes’s car, and a comprehensive cover with that company had also been taken out by her. Joyes then claimed to be indemnified in respect of the Todd Motor Company’s claim by the insurance company, which, whilst admitting liability under the comprehensive policy in respect of that part of the Todd Motor Company’s claim which consisted of damage to the motor car, denied liability on any ground in respect of the balance of the claim, £248 6s sd, which consisted of the salary paid to Cordery whilst injured and the expenses of appointing a temporary manager at Hawera during that period. Joyes thereupon brought an action in the Supreme Court at Wellington claiming that he was entitled to be indemnified by the insurance company in respect of the balance of the Todd Motor Company’s claim either -nder the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Risks) Act, 1928, or under the comprehensive policy. The matter was heard before Mr Justice Ostler in December last, who, holding that Joyes was entitled to be indemnified under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1928, held that it was unnecessary to answer the question whether he was also indemnified under the comprehensive policy. An appeal is now brought from that decision.