CLAIMS DISPUTED.

Wairarapa Age, 15 March 1933, Page 7

CLAIMS DISPUTED.

APPEAL BY INSURANCE COMPANIES. OH AIT CROSSING CASE CONTINUED 1 . WELLINGTON?, March 14. Three days were set aside by the Court of Appeal for the hearing of the appeals by the Australasian Temperance and General Mutual Life Assurance Society, ltd., and the Commercial Union Assurance Co., Ltd., from a judgment given by Mr. Justice Reed in August last, awarding Mrs. Elizabeth Ivy Johnson, of Wellington, £5OO and £245 10s against them respectively. The second day was entered upon this morning, when legal argument on behalf of the T. and G. Society was continued. Mr. O’Leary contended that there was direct evidence iby disinterested witnesses that the T. and G. receipt of July 3 was signed by Mrs. Johnson. It was submitted that it was not until Mrs. Johnson had seen the 'Commercial Union receipt that she turned round and alleged that the T. and iG. receipt was a forgery. Counsel claimed that the Court could differ from Mr. Justice Reed’s finding in respect of the T. and G. receipt. The case for the Commercial Union was opened by Mr. Parry, who joined with Mr. O’Leary in the submission that Mr. Justice Reed should not have accepted Mrs. Johnson’s evidence that the T. and G. receipt was a forgery. In addition, further and different considerations applied to his client company’s policy from those which applied, to the policy of the T. and G. Society in that the former was a comprehensive motor policy and the latter an ordinary accident policy. If the Court accepted the story of Mrs. Johnson that she was deliberately held on the train rail by her husband whilst the train ran over her foot, counsel submitted that the cause of injury to Mrs. Johnson was not an “accident” within the meaning of the policy. The proximate cause was not in connection with the motor car and such a connection was necessary to entitle Mrs. Johnson’s claim under the policy. His client company was not liable on the policy, as an incorrect account of the accident had been inserted in the claim form prepared by Johnson and accepted and ratified by Mrs. Johnson. That was a breach of the terms of the policy, which entitled the company to disclaim liability. Mr. Parry submitted that the company dealt all along with Johnson and as no objection was raised by Mrs Johnson the company was entitled to complete its dealings with him. . He contended further that Mrs. Johnson was estopped by failure to notify the company for some considerable time of the fact that there had been an unauthorised payment and that she intended to claim against the company. The Court adjourned until to-morrow. -(P.A.)