SPRINKLER LEAKAGE CASE.

SPRINKLER LEAKAGE CASE.

At Toronto, Ont., Chief Justice Falconbridge recenty gave judgment on the claims of the Boulter-Davies company and D. D. Hawthorne & Co., both of 24 Front street, in that city, against the Canadian Casualty and Boiler Insurance company. The former claimed $4,986.15 and the latter $5,000 against a loss of $6,920.50 for damages to their stock through the bursting of the pipes of their sprinkler system. The insurance company had taken a risk from each firm for $5,000, nut held that the damage specified in the claim was not covered by the policies, also that the policies were not in force at the date of the accident, as the premium had not been paid. A. G. C. Dinnick, the manager of the company, gave evidence as to the special charges for frost-risks. When such were undertaken by the company an extra two per cent, was added to the premium. He claimed that out of 125 “sprinkler” policies only thirteen included this extra risk. The judge, however, decided that the terms of the policy were general enough to cover the damage for which plaintiffs claimed, and that, as the company had failed to exclude the risk in specific terms, he would decide against them on that point. As to the defence that the policy was not in force because the premium had not been paid, he did not consider it good. The contract was valid from the time the policy was issued, and the payment of the premium merely discharged the obligation of the insured from the date of the policy for the period stipulated therein, and not merely from the date of payment. Under the circumstances he awarded $4,050.50 to the Boulter-Davies company and $5,000 to D. D. Hawthorne & Co.

No posts to display