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

(1944) 78 Ll.L.Rep. 245

COURT OF APPEAL.

Before Lord Justice MacKinnon, Lord Justice du Parcq and Mr. Justice Uthwatt.

Motor insurance - Passengers - Carriage for hire or reward-Policy taken out by claimant with Z. Co.-"Description of use: Use for social domestic and pleasure purposes and use by the insured in person in connection with his business or profession as stated in the Schedule hereto excluding:-use for hiring . . ."- Question in proposal form: "Will passengers be carried for hire or reward, or will the motor ear be let on hire? A.: No" -Condition of policy that "the due observance and fulfilment of the terms provisions and conditions of this policy . . . and 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" - Car used for transit to and from place of work-Three passengers regularly carried to and from same place of work-Accident resulting in death of passenger-Judgment recovered against claimant - Right to indemnity from Z. Co.-Arbitration-Evidence that two of passengers habitually and voluntarily offered railway fare to claimant, which he accepted, and that the third paid nothing; and that claimant would still have used his car for the journey and would have carried such passengers had they paid nothing-Whether "use for hiring" included carriage of passengers "for hire or reward" - Award that claimant was using the car for hiring in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy, and that therefore he was not entitled to indemnity-Case stated-Road Traffic Act, 1930, Sects. 36 (1) (b) (ii), 61, 67, 72.