Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co. v. Bell

Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co. v. Bell

Given the evidence (temporary boarder status, payment of board, lack of control by head of household, absence of shared householder responsibilities and no permission to use the brother's car), the insured was not 'of' the household of his brother; the exclusion therefore did not apply. Ambiguity in the insurer's language must be resolved against the insurer; insurer is liable under the policy.

Citation
[1957] SCR 581
Parties
Defendant/appellant: Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co.; Plaintiff/respondent: Florence Bell; Plaintiff/respondent: Allen Bell
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 June 1957
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (insurance Liability) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment for respondents against insurer affirmed.
Legal Topics
Automobile Liability Insurance, Interpretation of 'household' in Insurance Policy, Owner's Policy Substitute Automobile Exception, Contra Proferentem Rule
Source Language
English
Insurance Law Tort (automobile Liability) Statutory Interpretation Automobile Liability Insurance Interpretation of 'household' in Insurance Policy Owner's Policy Substitute Automobile Exception Contra Proferentem Rule

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co.

Defendant/appellant

Florence Bell

Plaintiff/respondent

Allen Bell

Plaintiff/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (insurance Liability) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an automobile owned by the insured's brother who resided in the same house fell within the policy exception 'owned by any person or persons of the household of which the Insured is a member'
  2. 2 Whether the insured was a 'member' or merely 'in' the household for the purpose of the exception
  3. 3 Whether ambiguity in the policy should be resolved against the insurer

Ratio Decidendi

Given the evidence (temporary boarder status, payment of board, lack of control by head of household, absence of shared householder responsibilities and no permission to use the brother's car), the insured was not 'of' the household of his brother; the exclusion therefore did not apply. Ambiguity in the insurer's language must be resolved against the insurer; insurer is liable under the policy.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment for respondents against insurer affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.
  • Judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario and trial court affirmed.