Stevenson v. Reliance Petroleum Limited / Reliance Petroleum Limited v. Canadian General Insurance Company

Stevenson v. Reliance Petroleum Limited / Reliance Petroleum Limited v. Canadian General Insurance Company

Majority held the loss arose from the "use" of the tank truck and therefore was covered by the automobile liability policy issued by Lloyds; the general public liability policy's exclusion "any claim arising or existing by reason of any motor vehicle" excluded the same risk so Canadian General had no liability; accordingly Reliance could recover from Lloyds but not from Canadian General.

Citation
[1956] SCR 936
Parties
Defendant/appellant: R.C. Stevenson, C.A., as Attorney in Canada for the Non-Marine Underwriters at Lloyds; Plaintiff; Appellant and Respondent: Reliance Petroleum Limited; Defendant/respondent: Canadian General Insurance Company
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 October 1956
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Supreme Court of Canada on Appeal From the Court of Appeal for Ontario
Outcome
Appeals dismissed with costs (majority); Locke J. dissenting in part
Legal Topics
Automobile Liability, General Public Liability, Policy Exclusion Clauses, Construction of Insurance Contracts, Indemnity Obligations, Negligence
Source Language
English
Insurance Contract Tort Automobile Liability General Public Liability Policy Exclusion Clauses Construction of Insurance Contracts Indemnity Obligations +1 more

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R.C. Stevenson, C.A., as Attorney in Canada for the Non-Marine Underwriters at Lloyds

Defendant/appellant

Reliance Petroleum Limited

Plaintiff; Appellant and Respondent

Canadian General Insurance Company

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Supreme Court of Canada on Appeal From the Court of Appeal for Ontario

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether loss arose from the "ownership, use or operation" of the tank truck under the automobile policy
  2. 2 Whether the property damage endorsement exclusion "any claim arising or existing by reason of any motor vehicle" precluded coverage under the general public liability policy
  3. 3 Whether insurer breached its contractual duty to investigate, defend and indemnify by declining to participate

Ratio Decidendi

Majority held the loss arose from the "use" of the tank truck and therefore was covered by the automobile liability policy issued by Lloyds; the general public liability policy's exclusion "any claim arising or existing by reason of any motor vehicle" excluded the same risk so Canadian General had no liability; accordingly Reliance could recover from Lloyds but not from Canadian General.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed with costs (majority); Locke J. dissenting in part

Orders

  • Appeal by R.C. Stevenson as attorney for Non-Marine Underwriters at Lloyds dismissed with costs.
  • Appeal by Reliance Petroleum Limited against Canadian General Insurance Company dismissed with costs.