There is a principle involved in the title of this Society which
is much too important to be briefly dismissed. The eagerness with
which all companies claim indisputability for their policies, is
a significant sign of public feeling on the subject. But the term
indisputable at present means nothing. To be effectual, it should be
absolute; and it is doubtful whether it would not benefit the whole
of the offices to adopt indisputability as their motto. There is
great evil, and there is often great wrong, in a disputed claim; but
it seems sometimes a necessity. Where there is conspiracy, fraud, or
concealment, it is manifestly unjust to pay a policy; but it costs
far more to resist it: and it is a point worthy mature consideration
whether an insurance so effected should not be treated as a fraud,
and punished criminally. It might be taken as a rule, that where the
policy is in the possession of any one who has assisted in the fraud,
it should not be paid; but when it has fairly passed into the hands of
a third party, such a course might be honourably avoided. It has been
said by its opponents, that at present there is no company which issues
policies really indisputable; that which is so called, being only
indisputable according as the conditions on the face of the policy are
maintained, and that their title is open to dispute.
There is, however, one merit due to this company. It has opened
a most important question, and one that will eventually lead to
indisputability in its most extended form. It will also render other
offices more cautious in entering a court of justice, and it can never
hope to enter itself with success.
That the power of a company is often vexatiously and unjustly stretched
to its utmost limit, in order to escape the payment of a policy,
the following will prove. It is in itself a strong argument for
indisputability.
When railway travelling was in its infancy, one John Scott, of
Birmingham, being compelled to journey by what was thought a dangerous
conveyance, was urged to insure his life as a provision for his family.
He offered himself to the Norwich Union, answered all their questions,
was examined by their medical man, and reported as perfectly sound.
So good a life was he, that the agent of the Imperial urged him to
abandon his proposition with the Norwich, offering him such inducements
that he consented, though it cost him six pounds to void his nearly
concluded bargain. He then went through all the forms necessary with
the Imperial, was reported again as a perfectly sound life, and gladly
accepted in May, 1840; the policy being for 2000_l._ From 1840 to 1842,
he worked with an untiring energy and an incessant labour utterly
incompatible with failing strength, and in that year he became a
bankrupt. So excellent was his health, that his assignees would not pay
any more premiums until they had ascertained that its market value was
equivalent to the payment, and they then sold it by public auction to
Mr. Beale for 135_l._, the Imperial itself bidding up to 100_l._ The
next premium was paid by Mr. Beale in May, 1843; and in the following
December, Mr. Scott died.
The discharge of this policy was contested with a determination sadly
at variance with unsophisticated justice; but because the Imperial had
a witness to prove that Mr. Scott had suffered from an ulcerated sore
throat in 1836, they refused to pay. And when on the first trial the
jury returned a verdict against the company, they obtained a second
trial on technical grounds, which again they lost, and yet another,
which was once more decided against them; though so great were the
expenses to the claimant that he gained nothing by his public purchase
of the policy granted on the faith of a respectable company.
With a case like this, and there are many like it, is not an
indisputable company desirable?