INSURANCE CLAIM.

Otago Witness, Issue 3755, 2 March 1926, Page 35

INSURANCE CLAIM.

IMPORTANT POINTS INVOLVED. CHRISTCHURCH, February 22. A case of some importance to life insurance companies was heard at the Supreme Court before his Honor Mr Justice Adams. A man made a proposal for life insurance, but between the time of his acceptance and of the policy being issued he underwent an operation, dying a few days later. The point at issue was whether the knowledge of the agent was the knowledge of the company which, on that ground, sought to avoid payment of the £IOOO. The plaintiffs were the executors of the will of Robert Holland, farmer, deceased, and the defendants were the Southern Cross Assurance Co. (Ltd.). Mr F. S. Wilding, K.C., with him Mr North, appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr Donnelly, with him Mr Lascclles, for the defendants. The statement of claim set out that deceased made and signed a proposal for a policy of £IOOO on March 6, 1925, the premium being £7O 9s 2d. On or about March 20 he received notice in writing from the company saying that the risk on his life had been accepted. Deceased was operated upon on March 16, rind ho died on March 24, while the policy was in force. Probate of deceased’s will was granted at Timaru on May 4, but on July 16 word was received from the company repudiating liability. The defendant company admitted receiving the sum of £7O 9s 2d from the deceased. At the time of his examination proponent made personal statements to the doctor on March 8. In answer to the doctor, deceased said he had never suffered from a complaint of the urinary and genitive organs, whereas defendant’s contended that he knew he had been suffering from hydrocele and acute epididymo orchitis. By withholding this information he had wilfully omitted from his personal statement material information, and the policy was accordingly null and void. Tne company denied that proponent had received notice on or about March 20 from it that the risk on his life had been accepted, as the notice was not posted till March 21. Mr Wilding said the doctor, who was the agent of the company, knew the risk, as his attention had been drawn to the inflam mation by proponent. It was his duty to report on the risk to th company. Proponent got over the operation all right, but succumbed later to an inexplicable attack of heart failure. Deceased went under the operation on March 16 and that same afternoon his wife saw the insurance agent and told him about it, and that her husband was getting on well. She had a doubt about his policy, but the agent assured her it would be all right. She then asked him to direct the manager of the Farmers' Cooperative Association, the agents for the company, and also the bankers for deceased, to pay the premium. The company knew it was insuring a man who was recovering from an operation. The company Cither accepted or rejected the proposal, and it was the duty of the person obtaining the proposal to submit one which the company would accept. Mr Donnelly submitted that the illness and the admission to the hospital were facts, the non disclosure of which, prior to the contract of March 20 or 22, entitled the defendant company to void the contract. Counsel asked for a non-suit, or judgment for defendant on the following grounds:— (1) The expressed provisions in the declaration attached to the proposal. (2) That Vincent was the agent only to canvass for business, to procure proposals, and to receive premiums, and that ho obtains his knowledge after his duties to his agency had finished. After further argument, the case was adjourned to enable his Honor to consider the non-suit point.