The Kempton Fire Insurance Case.

Wairarapa Standard, Volume XIX, Issue 1862, 26 July 1886, Page 2

The Kempton Fire Insurance Case.

At the Banco sittings of tbe Supreme Court last Thursday an application was made in the case of Kempton v. National Fire Insurance Company. The ease arose out of the fire which destroyed Kempton's store at Greytown some months ago. In an action to recover tbe insurance effected with the National Company judgment waa given for the Company on the ground that a subsequent insurance was not communicated to the defendant company. Mr Chapman now moved for judgment for the plaintiff on tbe groand that the condition in tbe policy relating to subsequent insurances was not so framed as to make its performance a condition precedent to the right to recover. The condition was as follows .—“ And in case of any subsequent insurance being effected during tbe continuance of this policy, the same must be notified to the company in writing, and allowed by endorsement hereon.” The condition further provided that the Company should have tbe right to cancel the policy, also incorporating average clauses in other policies, ami providing for contribution. Mr Chapman fur the plaintiff argued that the condition was not a condition precedent, it did not in clear terms show that a vested right was to be divested. The language was different from that of another condition, where a clear intention to avoid the policy was shown. The policy mast be construed in favor of the insured. This contention of Mr Chapman was not sustained by the Court. In giving judgment the Chief Justice remarked:— ‘The question is whether the third condition was a condition precedent to the right to recover. Nothing has been said io the argument to convince me that this com.motion can be admitted. In the term of the contract that is a condition, and if it is not performed tbe insurer is not liable. The clause relating to notice is followed by an 0) t io:i to tbe Company to put an end to the |i liey It wonid be contrary to the contract to put on it the construction submitted.” It wis decided that the original judgment in favor of the Insurance Company shoal 1 etaml, and Mr Kempton hat therefore final y lost the case.