Rochette v. Travelers Indemnity Co.

Rochette v. Travelers Indemnity Co.

The majority held that the structure constituted a dam and that the loss resulted from the breaking of that dam; because the policy unambiguously excluded liability arising out of operations in connection with dams, the insurer was not liable to intervene or defend and the appeal was dismissed.

Citation
[1974] SCR 22
Parties
Appellant / Plaintiff: Charles-E. Rochette; Respondent / Defendant: The Travelers Indemnity Company; Co Defendant / Employee: Réal Lajoie; Co Defendant / Municipality: La Corporation du Village Les Éboulements; Co Defendant / Contractor: J.M.G. Construction
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
31 January 1973
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Hearing on Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Queen's Bench, Appeal Side, Province of Quebec
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; Laskin J. dissenting.
Legal Topics
Exclusion Clause Interpretation, Duty to Defend, Definition of 'dam' Vs 'reservoir', Contra Proferentem, Prematurity of Impleader
Source Language
English
Insurance Professional Liability Tort (negligence) Civil Procedure Exclusion Clause Interpretation Duty to Defend Definition of 'dam' Vs 'reservoir' Contra Proferentem +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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Charles-E. Rochette

Appellant / Plaintiff

The Travelers Indemnity Company

Respondent / Defendant

Réal Lajoie

Co Defendant / Employee

La Corporation du Village Les Éboulements

Co Defendant / Municipality

J.M.G. Construction

Co Defendant / Contractor

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Hearing on Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Queen's Bench, Appeal Side, Province of Quebec

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the policy exclusion for liability arising out of operations in connection with dams applies to the structure involved
  2. 2 Whether the structure is a 'dam' within the meaning of the unqualified exclusion
  3. 3 Whether ambiguity in an exclusionary clause requires construing the clause against the insurer

Ratio Decidendi

The majority held that the structure constituted a dam and that the loss resulted from the breaking of that dam; because the policy unambiguously excluded liability arising out of operations in connection with dams, the insurer was not liable to intervene or defend and the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; Laskin J. dissenting.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs