To the Editor of the Dean Sm,—I have read with interest the ease reported in your paper this morning, Geo. Smith & Ca. v. The North-China Insurance Company, and the decision rived at appears to me the most extraordin nary of any I have come in contact with, It will, if left unaltered, form a precedent for consequences that may be most serious to the interests of Insurance Companies, as well as to Importers, and I would express the hope that an appeal will be made, and Counsel engaged to defend the case.
I may mention that some time last year Lcalled the attention of London friends to the clause referred to in the Policy of Insurance, and in acknowledging my letter, they informed me that it was inserted in ench one of their Policies, from which 1 (and T think T may safely sty seven-eighths of the Merchants in Shanghai are of the same opinion) clearly understood that all risks, in part or whole, from the ship's side to the wharf, or from the wharf to one of the jetties, were fully covered.
The defence, as well as the decision arrived ut, in this case, appears to me to have been determined upon a mere technicality, and it is for the consideration of Shippers to note such Insurance Oflices as "catch " at such matters.
Imagine ly landing or exporting one hundred bales of piece goods, and five of them drop into the river between the ships side and the Wharf, the policy, according to the decision of the case, of those taking delivery, is that the remainder shoul follow, 80 as to validate claim. Or take another instance. I ship ninety-nine bales of Silk, out of alor of one hundred, which I hold a "letter of cover." The remaining bale, in consequence of some dispute, is delayed a few hours in the godown for inspection, and in the meantime the lighter with the ninety-nine bales has upset between fir jetty and the ship's side; still, according to the ruling of the Deputy Chief Judge, no claim can be} valid here, because of one bale having been left behind, out may be the shipment divided between one or more lighters. This surely is neither equity nor law.
Asa contrast to the sharp practices of some Insttrance Offices in comparison with others, I may state a case with which a firm I'yas with had todo. We were the Bead and purchasers of a considerable lot of scrap iron from one of the Indian Railways, which we shipped at various times, and by yariona ships, to London and New York, always insuring each shipment in the Triton Tusneance Company, of which Messrs Jardine Skinner & Ca. are the Agents. By an oversight in respect to one shipment, we omitted to apply to the Agents for a" letter of cover," while the iron was in transit from the shore to the lay in the middle of the river, lighter from some cause or other, probably overloading, sank, We put forward no claim, on the hypothesis that, having no letter of cover, none could be made. We advised our London friends of the loss, who in reply wrote, that as each of the previous shipments had been steadily insured in the Triton Insurance Company, and that as the application for the letter of cover on the cargo of the sunk lighter was a brief omission, they were of opinion that the case should be placed before the This was done, and after investigating the matter fully, Messrs. Jardine A one-half of thi Such liberality is deserving of recognition, in contrast to the dispute of claims on mere technicalities, Lam, Dear Sir, Yours truly, A Surrrer.
To the Editor of the Sin,—I think it would have been better if your correspondent 'A Shipper" had made a little further enquiry into the subject of which he treats, before pennin; the letter under the above heading which appears in your columns this morning. Some of his remarks, however, are of 50 erroneous a nature, that I cannot allow them to pass unnoticed.
In the first place I must assure "A Shij that, so far from availing of any legal technicalities in resisting the claim made by Messrs. Geo. Smith & Ca., such accurse was most. studiously avoided by the Company which I represent, and ow defence was based solely upon' the established and universally recognised meaning of the clause "Warranted Free of Particular Average." Indeed I am surprised to learn that "A Shipper" has hitherto been content to conduct his business in such ignorance of the risks which, jin consideration of a reduced rate of premium, ho elected to bear himself under an F, P.'A. Policy.
Had the case in question presented any features of intricacy or difficulty, I think I am justified by past experience in assuming that it would have been treated in the most liberal spirit possible, and that every effort would have been made to arrive at settlement satisfactory to both parties but I fail to see on what grounds the Com pany could be expected to admit a claim which was expressly excluded by the terms of the contract of Insurance.
Your correspondent is perfectly correct in supposing that (always of course, excepting the case of a stranding) it is necessary, in Law, for a total loss to take place of the entire interest insured, irrespective of the number of lighters employed to convey it to the shore, in order to substantiate a claim under an F. P. A. Policy; but I may explain that underwriters do not, asarule, object to insert a clause undertaking to treat ench craft or lighter asa separate insurance; and the North-China Insurance Company has, as an actual fact, settled claims for total loss of single lighter under an F. P. A. Policy even when no such stipulation had been made. Tt is manifest, however, that a wide difference exists between a loss of the entire contents of a cargo-boat and such a case, for instance, as that of Messrs. Geo. Smith & Ca.
On " A Shipper's" argument that, in the event of one or tivo packages of cargo falling overboard from a boat, it is the: policy of the assured that the remainder should follow in order to validate a claim upon, his underwriter, I refrain from making any' comment.
Lam, Sir, Your obedient Servant, J.. Kessanp Davis, Shanghai, 16th July, 1873.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.