THE UPPER HUTT FIRE

Otago Witness, Issue 3168, 2 December 1914, Page 81

THE UPPER HUTT FIRE

ACTION AGAINST INSURANCE COMPANY. JUDGMENT RESERVED. WELLINGTON, November 24. A civil action arising out of the disastrous fire and explosion in Messrs Benge and Pratt’s store at Upper Hntt on March 28 was heard at the Supreme Court today before the Chief Justice. The plaintiffs were Herbert Victor Benge and Herbert Leopold Pratt, and the defendants the Guardian Assurance Company. The plaintiffs claimed the sum of £1750 under a policy issued by the defendant coinpany. The statement of claim stated that the plaintiffs previously carried on business in Upper Hutt, and had a stock-in-trade valued at £IBOO and upwards. On April 23, 1013, the defendant company issued to plaintiffs, in consideration of the sum of £37 5s 2d, an insurance policy against loss or damage by fire on the stock-in-trade to the amount of £IBOO, and the policy was renewed for one year on January 29, 1914, such policy being valid and in' force at the time of the fire on March 28. The stock-in-trade covered by the policv was totally destroyed by' fire, with the exception of a small quantity, which was taken possession of by the defendant company and was subsequently sold for £SO, this sum being handed to plaintiffs. The defendant company admitted that the policy was'in force, but denied that the stock-in-trade was of the value of £IBOO. It submitted that the stock was not totally destroyed by fire, but that tae loss was caused partially by fire and partially by an explosion. Further, the company denied that the plaintiffs had duly performed all the conditions of the policy. The main law point involved was—Did a breach of warranty embodied in the question on the proposal, “ Will any hazardous goods be stored?” and the answer, ‘‘No amount to a breach of the condition of policy.” Counsel for plaintiffs contended that if the fire was antecedent to the explosion plaintiffs were entitled to recover under the policy. The conditions of the policy, he argued, overrode the express declaration or warranty* of the policy 7. The defence * was that the acceptance of plaintiffs’ argument would mean setting aside a w’ell-known principle of insurance law. The defence contended that the storage of explosives rendered the policy invalid, and, in the alternative, that, even if the plaintiffs were entitled to store such goods, the storage of more than 251 b of explosives voided the policy. It was common ground (alleged counsel) that on more than one occasion over 50lb of gelignite and considerable quantities of blasting powder and gunpowder were stored on the premises. Judgment was reserved.