INSURANCE COMPANY SUED

Waikato Times, Volume 104, Issue 17581, 10 December 1928, Page 8

INSURANCE COMPANY SUED

SUCCESSFUL CLAIM. QUESTION OF TRANSFER FEE. POLICY WAS SUBSISTING. In the case in which Arthur William Overall claimed £4BO on an insurance policy issued by the Victoria Insurance Company, Mr Justice Blair gave judgment for plaintiff for the full amount with costs on the middle scale. The risk covered by the policy was a seven-roomed dwelling at Mamaku, £375; outbuildings £75; cowshed and bails £3O. On September 18 the house and outbuildings were destroyed by fire. The defence was first that the policy had lapsed for non-payment of premium, and that the mortgagee, Mrs Helen Emma Warren, had no interest in the policy when she transferred it to plaintiff. This alleged want of interest was also based on non-payment of premium. It was not disputed that the premium was not paid at the time of the lire, but plaintiff claimed that by reason of the circumstances defendant company was either stopped from setting up non-payment or that defendant company by its conduct treated the policy as subsisting and waived its right to treat it is iapesd. Summing up, Ilis Honour said when a fresh contract was made between the parties it was clear that Overall paid and the insurance company accepted 2s Gd transfer fee as a consideration for something. Overall believed the policy was a subsisting one. The company must, on the evidence, be taken to be aware of the fact that the premium 'was not actually paid, yet knowing this, they accepted a transfer fee. Can* any insurance company knowing that a policy has lapsed for non-payment of premium accept a transfer fee paid in the belief that the policy is subsisting, they necessarily knowing of the existence of this belief and wait until a fire has occurred and" then claim the policy which they treated as subsisting was not subsisting l By accepting payment for the transfer they lulled Overall into the belief that his premises were insured, and this remained the position until tw r o da>s after the lire, when the company through its Marton agents advised that the premium was not paid. “I think also that it is a fair inference to make that insurance companies arc aware of the practice whicn has prevailed for so many years of the assignee of an insurance policy adjusting with the assignor, for the unexpired portion of the premium. The assignee would not go. to the trouble and expense of getting the company’s assent to an assignment if the policy was not a subsisting one.” His Honour said the fact that Overall acted, as though the policy was subsisting, was beyond doubt.