Orion Insurance Co. v. Crone et al.

Orion Insurance Co. v. Crone et al.

Where an insured holds a valid and subsisting operating licence authorizing the type of international non‑scheduled charter, a failure to obtain a foreign government's permit and the fact the flight occurred at night under Visual Flight Rules did not place the aircraft use outside the scope 'in accordance with licences issued to the insured' in the policy; therefore the insurer was liable under s.95 for the unsatisfied judgments of Mr. and Mrs. Crone.

Citation
[1967] SCR 157
Parties
Defendant Appellant: Orion Insurance Company; Plaintiff Respondent: Robert Crone; Plaintiff Respondent: Violet Crone
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 January 1967
Procedural Posture
Statutory Action Under the Insurance Act (s.95) Seeking Recovery From Insurer of Unsatisfied Judgment Against Insured Air Carrier / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario (final Disposition)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Aircraft Liability Insurance, Policy Exclusion Interpretation, Statutory Insurer Liability (s.95), Operating Licence Compliance, Visual Flight Rules
Source Language
English
Insurance Law Aviation Law Administrative Law Aircraft Liability Insurance Policy Exclusion Interpretation Statutory Insurer Liability (s.95) Operating Licence Compliance Visual Flight Rules

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Orion Insurance Company

Defendant Appellant

Robert Crone

Plaintiff Respondent

Violet Crone

Plaintiff Respondent

Procedural Posture

Statutory Action Under the Insurance Act (s.95) Seeking Recovery From Insurer of Unsatisfied Judgment Against Insured Air Carrier / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario (final Disposition)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an unsatisfied judgment against Airgo Limited is indemnified under the aircraft liability policy
  2. 2 Whether the policy exclusion for use other than stated in Item 6 excludes coverage because the flight was not 'in accordance with licences issued to the insured'
  3. 3 Whether failure to obtain foreign government authorization for an international flight or conducting the flight at night (despite 'under day Visual Flight Rules only') removed coverage

Ratio Decidendi

Where an insured holds a valid and subsisting operating licence authorizing the type of international non‑scheduled charter, a failure to obtain a foreign government's permit and the fact the flight occurred at night under Visual Flight Rules did not place the aircraft use outside the scope 'in accordance with licences issued to the insured' in the policy; therefore the insurer was liable under s.95 for the unsatisfied judgments of Mr. and Mrs. Crone.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Judgment affirmed: insurer ordered to pay $7,452.93 to Robert Crone and $15,000.00 to Violet Crone, together with interest on the original judgments