CLAIM FOR £77,850.

Waikato Times, Volume 110, Issue 18405, 12 August 1931, Page 8

CLAIM FOR £77,850.

DETAILS OF THE JUDGMENT. NO DAMAGE BY EARTHQUAKE. DAMAGE CAUSED BY FIRE. (By Telegraph.—Press Association.) GISBORNE, Tuesday. Mr Justice Blair's judgment in the Wairoa insurance case dealt extensivc’y with the effects of the earthquake, as revealed in the evidence, and wRh incidents associated with the fire, including the action of the fire superintendent in arranging the cutting off of the electric power as a measure of public safety. There was a body of evidence for plaintiffs, showing that an inspection of the buidings before the fire failed to disclose any earthquake damage to cause the company any concern, which evidence could not be disregarded. The policy covered numerous buildings, and it was suggested by the defence that the fall of one building abrogated the insurance on everything in the policy unless the fall was caused by the fire, but His Honour could not set such a construction on the clause concerned. Such a construction would mean that if a small building many chains from the others fell or became displaced then the whole policy covering property valued at £139,167 would be abrogated. Correspondence Between Parties. Touching the correspondence between the parties prior to the litigation, His Honour said it was obvious that proof of damage was necessary only if and when required, and a letter from the defendants attempted to place upon the plaintiffs the responsibility to comply with a request for proof when no request had ever been made. A request for proof was first made after the defendants had been served with the writ, and had been granted time to file a defence. No proof was offered His Honour that defendants, either by letter, telegram, or verbally, expressed any want of satisfaction with the proof sent by the plaintiffs, nor had any request been made for further proof. Dealing with the defence under the clause covering the alteration in business of the insured, His Honour said the company never made any alteration in its business after the earthquake, nor was there any change, voluntary or Involuntary, on plaintiff’s part in the nature of its occupations or other circumstances such as to increase risk by fire. In the later stages of the Judgment His Honour indicated that no portion of the earthquake damage could be said to have contributed to the fire damage, and the spread of the fire had not been attributable to any earthquake damage to the buildings. Obscure Clauses. The defence based on the clause of the policy which purported to operate the assessment of insurance in the event of any portion of the buildings falling or being displaced by earthquake or other cause was treated at length by His Honour, who dealt with the authorities quoted in the course of the hearing, and favoured the interpretation of obscure clauses from the point of view of the insured. He held that the clause referred to was ambiguous and obscure, and he was justified in reading it from the point of view of the insured party rather than from that of the insurer.