Mote Park Fire – Insurance Claim

Weekly Freeman’s Journal – Saturday 03 March 1866

CURIOUS INSURANCE CASE.

The case of Lord Crofton against the Liverpool and London Laud Globe Insurance Company has been before the Court of Common Pleas. The Chief Justice delivered judgment. It was an action brought by the plaintiff to recover £12,000 from the defendants, £10,000, being claimed as a policy of insurance on the plaintiff’s mansion of Mote Park, in the county of Roscommon, which was destroyed by fire on the night of the 16th of May, 1865, and £2,000, as special damage for the expense plaintiff was put to and the injury he sustained by the neglect of the company either to pay the sum claimed or rebuild Mote Park within a reasonable time. The defences were, that the company elected to rebuild, were always ready and willing to do so, and that a reasonable time for completing the work had not elapsed before the bringing of the action ; and also a traverse of the special damage. Issues were framed on the pleadings, and the substantial question was, assuming the jury found that the company elected to rebuild, but did not do so within a reasonable time, what damages the plaintiff was entitled to ; or, in other words, to what sum was he entitled in money to enable him to reinstate Mote Park mansion as it was before the fire. From the statement of Mr. Whiteside, who opened the case on Wednesday, and the evidence subsequently given, it appeared that Lord Crofton, several years ago, insured in the Globe Insurance Company the mansion of Mote Park for £10,000. The Globe Company afterwards amalgamated with the London and Liverpool office, and a new policy was issued to Lord Crofton. On the night of the 16th of May, 1865, Lord Crofton being then in Dublin, Mote Park accidentally took fire, and was burned to the ground, nothing but the external and a portion of the internal walls being left standing. Some of the contents of the building were saved. Application was, of course, at once made to the insurance company, and they sent agents to the scene of the fire to see the extent of the loss and estimate the amount of compensation to be paid to Lord Crofton. A sum of nearly £3,000 was paid by the company on account of the furniture, but in reference to the building itself a dispute arose. Lord Crofton employed professional persons to look after his interest in the matter, and between them and those acting on the part of the company differences arose as to two matters -first, the  sum that would restore the mansion to as good a condition as it stood in before the fire, and next, as to the mode by which the exact amount which Lord Crofton could fairly claim should be arrived at. A correspondence on these disputed points, extending over several months, took place between Messrs. Geale and Dwyer, the plaintiff’s solicitors, and the agents of the company in Liverpool, without any definite or satisfactory result being arrived at. During the continuance of the correspondence the negotiations for a settlemeat went so far as an arrangement for the appointment of an arbitrator on each side, with an umpire, to decide all controverted points that might arise. Mr. W. Curdy, architect, was nominated by Lord Crofton, and Mr. Stewart, architect, of Liverpool, by the company. No umpire was, however, selected, some difference having arisen on that point. In view of the arbitration, Mr. Duolin, surveyor and measurer, acting for Lord Crofton, and Mr. Wainright, a professional gentleman, acting for the company, made measurements of the works to be done, and Mr. Doolin subsequently prepared a schedule of prices for the works, upon which the plaintiff now relied. Owing to the non-appointment of an umpire the arbitration fell through. Some statements were made in July by persons acting for the company, to the effect that they would be compelled to re build, but disputes arising on different matters of detail between the parties, and no settlement being come to, the correspondence ceased in December last, and the plaintiff then brought the action. Throughout the abortive negotiations the plaintiff insisted that no less a sum than £10,000 would restore the mansion to its original state. The company, on the other hand, seemed to hold the opinion that£ 5,000, or, at any rate, £6,000 would be amply sufficient to give Lord Crofton as good a mansion as he had before the fire. On the part of the plaintiff, Mr. Doolin, Mr. Thomas Carroll, builder ; Mr. William Crow; builder; Mr. John Hodgens, ironmonger; Mr. Edward Rounds, house painter and decorator ; and Mr. Wm. Roes, plumber, were produced, to prove that the estimate of £10,000 for restoring the mansion was a fair and reasonable estimate, having regard to the prices that should necessarily be allowed for building materials, and for skilled labour, &c., in Roscommon, an important element in the matter being the cost of transmitting the materials and workmen from Dublin to Roscommon. The witnesses were closely cross-examined by the defendants’ counsel on the details of their several estimates for portions of the work, to show that their calculations were too high, and contemplated many items of a superior character to those in Mote Park before its destruction. On Thursday the witnesses examined on the previous day by the plaintiff were recalled and examined again as to the items which made up the estimate of £10,000 as the sum which would perfectly restore Mote Park to the condition it stood in before the fire. The witnesses were cross-examined with the view of impeaching their accuracy.

Mr. Brewster, Q.C., stated the defendants’ case, which was substantially that from the very commencement Lord Crofton insisted that £10,000, and no lesser sum, would replace the damage caused to the mansion by the fire ; that the company several times applied to Lord Crofton and to the professional persons acting for him, to give the details of the calculations by which the sum of £10,000 was arrived at ; that these details were not supplied, and that the company being informed by competent persons who inspected the premises that £6,000 would restore them, could not, of course, yield to the demand for £10,000, and at length selected, in accordance with the terms of the policy, to restore the building—a step which, according to counsel’s statement, Lord Crofton declared that he would oppose by every obstacle he could throw in the way, and under these circumstances the pleas of the company, that they were always ready and willing to restore, and that a reasonable time for restoring had not elapsed, were true, and should after the evidence be so found by the jury. Counsel reminded the jury that the company never had disputed, and were not now disputing, their liability to restore Lord Crofton’s house perfectly and completely. They had already paid £3,000 on account of the insurance on the furniture, plate, &c., and they only allowed the case to go to trial because they deemed the claim of £10,000 to be excessive. On Friday, at the sitting of the court, Mr. Brewster resumed his address for the defendants. He went in detail through the voluminous correspondence in the case to show that up to December last, an arbitration between the parties was contemplated. Counsel here contended that the company could not justly be held responsible for neglecting to rebuild Mote Park during the period that efforts were being made to arrive by arbitration at a money compensation to be paid to Lord Crofton. The company were always willing and ready to rebuild, and a reasonable time had not yet elapsed, because, according to the plaintiff’s evidence, the work could not be finished within 80 weeks. Mr. Hayden and Mr. Hancock, insurance surveyors, were examined to sustain the allegation that £6,000 would restore the mansion of Mote Park. The witnesses were closely crossexamined with the view of showing that their estimates were insufficient both as regarded the work to be done and the price to be paid for it. On Saturday Mr. Butt, managing director of the company, Mr. Thomson, the secretary ; Mr. Banner, of Lace, Banner and Lace, solicitors, of Liverpool, were examined in reference to the various new – relations which took place between Lord Crofton and the agents of the company after the fire. The substance of their evidence was, that throughout the company only wanted to arrive at a fair adjustment of Lord Crofton’s claim that being advised £6,oo0 would rebuild Mote Park, they did not feel bound to yield to a claim of£10,000  and that, though they reluctantly elected to rebuild in July, they did not carry out their intention for two reasons. First, because Lord Crofton stated that he would throw obstacles in the way, and next, because there was a renewed negotiation for a settlement by arbitration, which subsequently fell to the ground. The witnesses were severally cross-examined with a view of showing that the offer of £6,000, was made upon insufficient and inaccurate data -that there really was no bona fide election to rebuild by the company which would bind them, and that the prospect of rebuilding was, in fact, only held out as a threat to Lord Crofton to induce him to lower his demand of £10,000. Mr. Meekin, measurer, was examined on the part of the company to prove the measurements of the work to be done, and the price which, at about £6,ooo, Mr.Plunknett, member of the firm of Cubitt and Co., London, the eminent builders, stated that his firm would contract for re building Mote Park for £6,500., taking down the old walls to a certain point, or removing them altogether, for £7,000. On cross-examination Mr. Plunknett stated that his estimate was founded on the prices that would be paid for building materials and skilled labour within a radius of fifty miles of London. He was not well acquainted with Dublin prices. Mr. Gilbert Cockburn, builder, of Dublin, stated that he would restore Mote Park for £7,000. He  was cross examined as to the details of his estimate, to show that he contemplated in some items superior fittings to those in Mote Park before it was burned. Yesterday Mr. Mullin and Mr. M. Curdy, on the part of Lord Crofton, and Mr. Meekin, on the part of the company, were re-examined, with the view of informing his lordship and the jury the exact points of difference between the opposite estimates in the case. It appeared that these differences arose in respect of the number of walls to be taken done, and in the lower prices than those adopted by Lord Crofton’s advisers, which the company’s professional men allowed for masonry, for slating, and for painting, papering and decorating, and for chimney pieces and grates. The company, it appeared did allow anything for architect’s and  surveyor’s fee, or for a clerk of works, for each of which, in Lord Crofton’s estimate, there was a  substantial sum put down The company put down. The company also put down a much less amount for  “loading and repairing avenues and roads injured during the rebuilding” than was in the estimate  of Mr. Doolin. Mr. Murray, architect, was examined to explain the points of difference. The evidence on both sides having closed, Mr. Hutt, Q C. , summed up for the defendants, and contended that upon the whole case the jury, could fairly come to the conclusion that in July, by the letters of their agents, they elected to rebuild, and a reasonable time had not yet elapsed for doing the work, because it was only in December last that the negotiation for settlement by money broke off, as he argued, through no fault of the company. He called upon the jury, in estimating the damages, should they find that there was not an  election to rebuild, to estimate the sum Lord Crofton was entitled to on the policy by the opinions of Mr. Plunkett and Mr. Cockburn. He asserted that the company had no other idea at any stage of the negotiations than to deal meet fairly by Lord Crofton.

Mr. Macdouogh, Q.C., replied for the plaintiff, and submitted that the Company’s conduct in reference to the claim of Lord Crofton dad been marked by protraction, evasion and delay. He denied that the Company ever definitely elected to rebuild, and asked, if they did so elect, why was the   work not commenced long before this?  He complained of the injury and loss caused to Lord Crofton by the vacillating course pursued by the company, who throughout took care, he asserted, never to bind themselves to anything, but held out a threat of building solely to coerce Lord Crofton to reduce righteous claim to £10,000.  The learned counsel called on the jury to be guided in their estimate of damages by the calculations of Mr. M. Curdy and Mr. Doolin who conceived that Mote Park could not adequately be restored under £10,000. At the conclusion of the  learned counsel’s address; The Chief Justice intimated that he  not think of the count for special damages laid £2,000. could be maintained. After some discussion,

Mr. Macdonogh, Q.C., said he yielded to his lordship’s opinion, and would not ask a find on that count for the plaintiff.

The Chief Justice charged the jury, and  left it to them to say whether, upon all the evidence in the case, they would hold that the defendants. did or did not elect to rebuild. If they did not, then they would decide, according to the views they took of the respective estimates put in on behalf of Lord Crofton and the company, the amount oflamer, they would assess.

The jury, after an hour’s deliberation. came into court at a quarter to seven o’clock with the finding, that the company did not elect to rebuild and assessing the damages at £9,000.

Mr. Macdonogh—You will please gentlemen compute the interest on that sum since the last.

The Foreman—Oh no, we wi.l not give interest.