AN INSURANCE CLAIM.

Timaru Herald, Volume XIIIC, Issue 14151, 10 March 1910, Page 2

AN INSURANCE CLAIM.

DISPUTED BY INSURERS. At the Magistrate's Court yesterday, Mr V. G. Day was occupied for a considerable time in hearing a civil case James Holme (Mr "Walter Shaw) v. Farmers' Co-Operative Insurance Association- of Christclrarch (Mr Johansen), for whom the Canterbury Farmers' Co-operative Association are the Timaru agents. The claim was for £l5O, amount of insurance on a cottage in Theodocia street, destroyed by fire in September last. Mr | Shaw said that the house had been insured with defendants for £l5O, but defendants denied liability. James Holme stated that ho was the owner of the house, and he valued it at about £2OO. It was insured with the Canterbury Farmers' Co-Operative Association for £l5O. (Policy produced). To Mr Johanscn: He could not read. Ho did liot give notice in writing to the company when the fire occurred, as the agent of the company had spoken about it. He did not instruct his solicitor to deliver a claim on the company within 15 days. He used to visit the place once a 'month to collect the rent from Green, who occupied the house. Mr Green used to have a lolly shop "but witness did not know where the lollies were made. To Mr Shaw : AVitness let the house to Mr Green at 10s a week, simply as a dwelling house. Air Johansen said that the defence was that there had been such a material alteration in the risk as to void the policy. He referred His Worship to the policy itself, and to the conditions accompanying it. When there were machinery, boxes, boiler and labels in the house it was in effect being carried on as Mr Green's lollie factory. This must affect the risk, besides which there was an appreciable difference in the premiums for a lollie shop, and a dwelling. If the risk was materially altered it did not matter how tho fire broke out. Material alteration of risk voided the policy, no matter how the fire occurred. It lay with tho plaintiff to give notice of any alteration, anil in fact it was really li!s duty to do so. If then the company did not approve of the increased risk, they would cancel the policy. A clause in the conditions of the policy reminded the insured that lie must notify the company when certain alterations were made.

Frederick William Kirk, assurance adjuster, said that lio visited Mr Holme's premises shortly after tho fire-, and thought that tlie liro had commenced in a room on tho loft side, which had a copper ill it. There \va;> a lot of ingredients in tlie room, hesides waste and dehris. Labels and box-making material were in tho iiexi room, communicating with the washhouse. In another room there was some lollie-making machinery, besides almonds, sugar, butter, and colour mixtures of a weight or about 3 ovi. To Mr fcihaw: Ho had examined Mr Green's property for* the Ocean Accident Company, and they told him that the property was insured as being in a dweJling-liouso. Witness could not say whether tho 'machinery had been used in tho house. Ho found no remains of manufactured confectionery. William • McDougail, builder, said that lie had inspected Mr Holme's building after the fire, and estimated that it would cost £123 to reinstate it. Potor Campbell, ccal dealer, said that he was at the fire, as a lireman. and saw some toii'ee on trays m one room. Frederick Gruhii, clerk in chargo of the Insurance Department at tho "canterbury Farmers' Co-Operatire .Association, said that lio did net know that tho manufacture of ccniteiiojis.'.ry went on in the house. Ths insui-Ht»:>> on a confectionery factory was greater than en a dwelling house, ii..- i. have cancelled the policy had he ka.vr, u ;that lollie-making was carried on in ithe house. To Mr Shaw: Witness had never inpected the house, and his Compa/iy only made an inspection once in every seven or nine He had never noticed any machinery in the house. He did not remember informing Mr Holmes that he need not send in a written claim. Detective Fa hey said that he was of opinion that the hre had commenced in the wash-house. Michae! McLeod, aged 16, said lis knew tlie house, and used to go there, when Mr Green lived in it. There was a framework of wood with sacks hanging from it, outside the back door, arid in this enclosure was a portable boiler. Hud never seen it in use, but had seen some ashes on the ground beside it, and water in it. i o Air Shaw : Was never inside tlie house H'heu Mi' Green was there. Mary McLeod, a sister to the last witne.s, said that she had often seen lollies spread out on the verandah of Green's house. She thought tliev were put there to cool. At the back "of the house a place was screened off in which there was a boiler. To Mr Slmw: It was several months before tlie, fire that witness saw this. Mrs McNatty said that she'lived next door to the Greens for twelve months Had seen Mr Green workini; in tlie back yard often; and from the smell, witness judged that he .was boiling sugar. He had a proper furnace for the job. It was like a portable boiler without a door, and was located about 6ft. from the back door. A screen of ordinary scrim was erected to keep the wind off. Tlie furnace was not against the wall of the house.

To Mr Shaiv: The sugar boiling was carried on very rarely. It was absolutely safe so far as witness could see. Before the boiled sugar was taken into the house, Mr Green used to cool it at the tap outside. Mr Shaw' called. The Manager of the Ocean Accident Insurance ompany. who said that his Company had insured the goods in Green's house at ordinary rates. It was considered an ordinary risk. Mr Johansen cross-examined at some length to show that when the Ocean Accident Company settled up with Green it charged him with premiums at the rate of 27s 6d per cent.—the rate for a manufacturing establishment. Witness said he did not have anytlrni; to do with the settling' up. He believed that some compromise was arrived at. A mistake may or may. not hava been made in taking the risk as an ordinary one. Miss Mansfield, formerly employed by the Company, said that she had insured Mr Green's house as an ordinary dwelling. A. C. Murray said that when employed by the Ocean Accident Company he insured Mr Green's household furniture. Inspected the place, and found nothing inside to differentiate it from the ordinary house. .Took it as an ordinary risk, and knew of no reason why it should be taken as anything else. Mr Johansen cross-examined to show that the proposal indicated that there was merchandise and loliy-making machinery in the house. Donald McKay, carpenter, said he lived next to the destroyed house. The fire started in the washhouse. This concluded the evidence. Mr Shaw submitted that no case had been made out to show any cause for withholding the insurance money. There had been no material alteration in the risk, and the Company which had insured the furniture had paid up. The Magistrate said it all depended on what constituted "material alteration." Did boiling sugar at the house one© a month or occasionally, constitute a material alteration in the risk ? He suggested that legal argument be taken on Monday morning Best, and both counsel agreed to this.