AUSTIN v. ZURICH GENERAL ACCIDENT & LIABILITY INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD.

(1943) 77 Ll L Rep 409

KING'S BENCH DIVISION.

Before Mr. Justice Tucker.

Motor insurance-Extension clause-Double insurance - Rateable proportion - Non-disclosure -Breach of conditions of policy -Accident involving fatal injuries to A. and injuries to N. (both passengers) in A.'s car driven by plaintiff with A.'s consent-A. insured by "Zurich," plaintiff insured by "Bell" both policies containing extension clause - Actions brought against plaintiff by N. and by executrices of A.-Settlement-Payments made (without prejudice and denying liability) by "Bell" in accordance with settlement terms-Present action brought by "Bell" (suing in plaintiff's name) against "Zurich" claiming full or part indemnity under policy issued to A.- Subrogation rights of "Bell"-Effect of double insurance-Whether imposing proportionate liability on each insurance company - Right of plaintiff to sue "Zurich"-"Persons specified in the policy in respect of any liability which the policy purports to cover in the case of those persons"-Alleged non-disclosure of material facts by A. and incorrect answers to questions in proposal form-"The truth of the statements and answers in the said proposal shall be conditions precedent to any liability of the company to make any payment under this policy" -Defective vision-Physical infirmity- Chronic alcoholism-Previous demands for increased premiums-Accident record of previous three years - Condition of "Zurich" policy requiring insured to give notice of any impending prosecution- Informations preferred against plaintiff, charging him with dangerous and careless driving-Failure by plaintiff to give notice to "Zurich"-Road Traffic Act, 1930, Sect. 36 (4).