Phoenix Assurance Co Ltd v Berechree - [1906] HCA 6

THE PHONIX ASSURANCE

APPELLANTS

COMPANY LIMITED DEFENDANTS, BERECHREE

RESPONDENT. PLAINTIFF,

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF Fire insurance-Policy-Condition - for avoidance if untrue statement made-Pro-

posal-Fire claim-False statement in proposal filled in by agent-Agency- Estoppel-Ratification-Holding out. HOBART, Feb. 19, 20,

B. effected a policy of fire insurance with the appellants through their local agent. The policy made the proposal the basis of the insurance, and its MELBOURNE,

incorrectness or untruth in any respect, material or not, was to exonerate the company from all liability; and fraud or falsehood in the notice of claim for loss under the policy was to work a forfeiture of all benefits thereunder. On signing the proposal, B. received from the agent a cover-note signed by him and containing the words: "Accepted by the company subject to the approval of the manager (&.)." Across the document were written the words: "Fourteen days cover only." In the proposal which was filled up by the agent, and in the notice after the fire, B.'s interest in the premises was falsely described to a material extent. In an action on the policy against the company, the jury found that the false description had been inserted by the company's local agent in the proposal after it had been signed by B. The jury also found that the false description in the claim was not wilfully and intentionally untrue, and that the local agent in falsifying the proposal was acting as the agent of the company, not of B.

Held, that the authority of the local agent was limited to transmitting the proposal to the company, and issuing to the proponent an interim receipt, giving temporary cover; that of this limitation B. had express notice, and that the company was therefore not estopped from setting up the excess of authority of the agent.

3 CLR 947

Held, also, that, on the facts, the local agent could not be considered as H. C. OF the agent of the company in filling in the answers to the questions in the proposal form.

Biggar v. Rock Life Assurance Co., (1902) 1 K.B., 516, followed. Held, further, that, if the proposal as transmitted was affirmed by B., the policy was vitiated by reason of the falsity of its basis and, on the other hand, if the proposal as transmitted was denied, the parties were never ad idem, and there was therefore never any completed contract between them. The plaintiff's right could, at most, only extend to recovering the premium in an action not founded on the policy.

Decision of the Supreme Court, Berechree v. Phoenix Assurance Co. Ltd., 1 Tas. L.R., 119, reversed.

APPEAL from the decision of the Full Court of Tasmania.

The facts appear fully in the judgment of Griffith C.J. Waterhouse, for the appellants. The jury found that the state- ment in the fire claim, of April 11th 1904, that plaintiff was the owner, and that no other person had any interest in the premises, was untrue in…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Phoenix Assurance Co Ltd v Berechree and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1906] HCA 6
Decision Date: 16 March 1906

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Phoenix Assurance Co Ltd (the insurer) appealed to the High Court of Australia against a judgment in favour of Berechree (the insured) concerning a fire insurance policy. The dispute arose after a fire destroyed the insured's property, and the insurer sought to avoid liability under the policy due to alleged false statements made in the proposal form. The insured contended that the statements were not false or, alternatively, that the insurer was estopped from relying on them.

The High Court was required to determine whether the insurer was entitled to avoid the policy based on the statements made in the proposal form. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the knowledge of the insurer's agent, who filled in the proposal form, was attributable to the insurer, and whether the insurer was estopped from denying the truth of the statements contained within the proposal. The court also considered the principles of agency, including ratification and holding out, in the context of the agent's actions.

The court reasoned that the agent, acting within the scope of their authority, had filled in the proposal form with information that was, to the agent's knowledge, untrue. The insurer was bound by the knowledge of its agent, and therefore, it could not rely on the untrue statements to avoid the policy. The court applied the principle that an insurer is estopped from denying the truth of statements contained in a proposal form when those statements were made or filled in by its agent, who had knowledge of the true facts. The insurer was deemed to have held out the agent as having authority to complete the proposal form, and the insured reasonably relied on the agent's actions.

The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment in favour of the insured was affirmed.

Orders