INSURANCE CLAIM.

Wairarapa Age, 16 March 1933, Page 7

INSURANCE CLAIM.

APPEAL CASE CONTINUED IN WELLINGTON. LEGALITY OF DOCUMENTS. WELLINGTON, March 15. Legal argument was continued in the Court of Appeal to-day on the appeals of the Australasian Temperance and General Mutual Life Assurance Co., Ltd., and the Commercial Union Assurance Co., Ltd., challenging the right of Mrs. Elizabeth Ivy Johnson to recover from them accident insurance moneys the company already had paid out to her husband. Receipts for the payments, purporting to be signed, by Mrs. Johnson, were obtained by. the two companies, but some months later Mrs. Johnson alleged that the signatures on the receipts and other documents were forgeries and that her husband had no authority to collect the money. She took action against the two companies in the Supreme Court last year and judgment was given in her favour by Mr. Justice Reed.

On behalf of the respondent (Mrs. Johnson), Mr. A. B. Sievwright submitted that there was evidence to support the contention that the accident was covered by the policy of the Commercial Union Company. The insurance companies, said Mr. Sievwright, did not accept Mrs. Johnson's statement that the documents were forgeries and insisted that they were genuine. Thus if there was any duty on Mrs. Johnson to disclose, which was denied, loss or damnification,, if any, must be attributed to their failing to make inquiries or y their being content to accept z the assurance of Johnson (the husband) andjhm solicitor. Counsel submitted that the evidence of the locomotive toretaan was conclusive, in proving that red aC S’ 1 * MrS - ' Toh " so ' l kad occurrar h Y n . Sbe Was J um P>nff from the J'*? sustained an “accident” enHt" 1 / mS ° f the 'P° lic y nnd was ovoV ri t - recover - ln any ease, however, the insurance companies had admitted their liability and they could "u": re P. udia ? c her claim because tney had paid the wrong ■•person Thp admission of liability and payment even though made to the wrong person’ constituted the companies and Mrs’ Johnson as debtor and creditor reaped r nla- y ’ the companies from raising technical defences based on of the e°n ? o!ieies - To «>« defence of the companies that the dispute had not been referred to arbitration by Mrs Johnson, he submitted that a “dis and liabiHt n \ a /i Sp, ’ tC as to ]ia ™ity and liability had been admitted by the -?P.A < )’ ,Urt a ' 3journe(l to-morrow.