This report is instructive as a lesson in tactics, The fire occur-wed on April 9 in four godowns at Nan-nidoo, being caused by a cracker from a. bridal party setting fire to a mat-shed roof. From the first godown the fire spread to the others, in "li four being destroyed. Ttis this matshed roof which is the crux of the matter.
When the contents of the godowns were insured two or three months previously, the insurance was effected as upon goods in godowns of massive structure. Some time in March the iron roofs were removed, and during alterations a temporary covering was erected against the weather, consisting of wood, some kind of felt and then matting. This, from the insurance point of view. altered the whole conditions of the policy. The risk of fire became infinitely greater, and obviously to insure goods stored in such premises, the companies would require a much larger premium. The correct way in such a case would have been for the insured to notify the company and have the conditions altered to meet the ineressed risk. This is provided for by a clause in all policies.
In one or two cases this was done, and the losses have been paid; bat in the great majority it was not, and hence the refusal to pay the claim amounting to over four lakhs.
The position is that 16 British insurance companies as well as three Dutch, two Chinese, one American and one Japanese are interested in the repudiation of the claim. The fact that there is only one American company hardly shows the position of the American firms concerned, for they work by means of 2 pool. It comes to this, that most of the leading companies are interested, and this threat of a boscott—for that is what in plain lange uage it amounts to—would throw on the other conipanies a greater proportion of risk than they are prepared to take according to their ordinary principles of working.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.