PRIVATE OR PUBLIC?

Taranaki Daily News, 19 August 1925, Page 9

PRIVATE OR PUBLIC?

AFTERMATH OF FIRE. BOARDING-HOUSE DISTINCTION. QUESTION OF INSURANCE The difference between a public board-ing-house and a private boarding-house was under discussion in the Supreme Court at New Plymouth yesterday, when William John Arundell, of New Plymouth, sued the National Insurance Company of New Zealand, Ltd., for £335 insurance, which he claimed was due to him from the company following a fire at the Clarendon boarding-house, St. Aubyn Street, New Plymouth. Mr. C. H. Weston, who appeared for the defendant company, in opening the case, said the contest between the parties arose out of an insurance policy written on July 18, 1921, insuring the plaintiff in the sum of £750 with respect to what was described as a private boarding-house. Following its description the place was insured as a private boarding-house at private boardinghouse rates. Experts would say, Mr. Weston continued, that there were two kinds of rates affecting boarding-houses. First of all there was class *'W,” under which a private dwelling or private boardinghouse was included. For a private dwelling the rate was twelve shillings per eent., with a rebate of one-third. A private boarding-house was eo rated, except that the rebate was not allowed, while there was an additional charge of one shilling per oent. per room for every room over two available for lodgers. The other class of risk was class “Z.” in which public boarding-houses were included. The letter “Z” represented the last letter in the alphabet, Mr. Weston remarked, and also the last thing theinsurance companies would take in risks. They considered risks in this class as the most hazardous. Under this class the rate for a public boarding-house was 30s 7d per cent. “PAYING -GUESTS.” The difference between a public boarding-house and a private hoardinghouse was that a public boarding-house was open for the reception of casual guests, who came uninvited and without contract in most cases, at any time of the day or night for a meal or a bed. A private boarding-house was on the same basis as a man’s private home, in that it was open to admit only people whom he had selected in the course of business. His Honour: The distinction nowadays is recognised by the fact that there are no boarders. There are only paying guests. Mr. Weston: The distinction, however, is recognised by the New Plymouth borough by-laws under which public boarding-houses have to be licensed. In the insurance company’s tariff, Mr. Weston proceeded, a public boardinghouse was defined as a house at which casual visitors might obtain single meals and, or, accommodation for the night.

Mr. B. H. Quilliam, who appeared for the plaintiff, remarked that the tariff was a confidential document available only to the insurance officers, while Mr. Geo. Duncan (manager of the defendant company’s New Plymouth office) replied to His Honour that this distinction was not embodied in the proposal or in the policy. Mr. Weston further said that the policy was issued on the statement of Arundell that the property was a private hoarding-house. Arundell bought the house in 1920, and immediately spent a considerable amount of money upon it with the object of raising the status of the house to a good, workingman’s private boarding-house. In 1921 policies were issued by the defendant company as on a private boarding-house. Mr. Weston drew attention to a clause in the renewal notice warning the insured that the company must be, notified immediately of any alteration in the nature of the risk. The tenants of the house changed, and whatever had been the ease before, the last tenant, Mrs. White, said that the house was used as a public boarding-house. She did not know it was necessary to obtain a license, and she had not done so. - CASUAL GUESTS ACCEPTED. Mr. Weston added that two years ago the borough inspector had inspected the house and had decided that it was not a public boarding-house under the bylaws. Mrs. White had her effects insured in another office under public boarding-house rates. The plaintiff, in reply to a letter to the company after the fire, had said that to the best of his knowledge it was used as a private boarding-house, but he had since learned that to a certain extent casual guests had been accepted. Giving evidence, Geo. Duncan, the manager of the defendant company, said that when the insurance had been written the property had been represented as being used as a private boarding-house, and that no notice had been given that it was being used as a public boardinghouse. From the proposal, he took it that Arundell had supplied the particulars. In cross-examination, Dunean said he was sure that Arundell had represented the house as a private boarding-house, and that he had advised the plaintiff when the policy was being issued that tliere was a big difference between private and public boarding-houses. He did not think Arundell would deliberately deceive the company.

After other expert evidence had been given as to the methods of effecting risks and the advice given to insurers, the court adjourned until ten o’clock this morning, when the plaintiff’s case will be heard.