Pickford Black Ltd. v. Canadian General Insurance Co.

Pickford Black Ltd. v. Canadian General Insurance Co.

The Court held the operative ‘accident’ was the shifting of cargo at sea (the occurrence), not merely the originating negligent stowage at Halifax; Endorsement No.1 was expressly subject to the policy’s exclusions so Exclusion No.1 ('accident occurring outside the Dominion of Canada and the United States of America') applied; additionally the 'risk at sea outside Halifax Harbour Limits' exclusion applied because 'risk at sea' denotes the event insured against; the exclusions were clear and not ambiguous so contra proferentem did not apply; therefore the claim was excluded and the appeal dismissed.

Citation
[1977] 1 SCR 261
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Pickford Black Limited; Defendant/respondent: Canadian General Insurance Company
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
30 January 1976
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal Insurance Liability / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, Appeal Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Exclusion Clauses, Definition of ‘accident’, Risk at Sea, Endorsement Interpretation, Contra Proferentem
Source Language
English
Insurance Law Tort (negligence) Maritime Law Contract Interpretation Exclusion Clauses Definition of ‘accident’ Risk at Sea Endorsement Interpretation +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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pickford Black Limited

Plaintiff/appellant

Canadian General Insurance Company

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal Insurance Liability / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, Appeal Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the policy exclusion for ‘accident occurring outside the Dominion of Canada and the United States of America’ excludes damage from cargo shifting at sea although negligence occurred at dockside in Halifax
  2. 2 Whether the Endorsement is subject to the main policy exclusions
  3. 3 Whether the phrase ‘risk at sea outside Halifax Harbour Limits’ excludes the claim and whether it means ‘perils of the sea’ or the risk/event insured against

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held the operative ‘accident’ was the shifting of cargo at sea (the occurrence), not merely the originating negligent stowage at Halifax; Endorsement No.1 was expressly subject to the policy’s exclusions so Exclusion No.1 ('accident occurring outside the Dominion of Canada and the United States of America') applied; additionally the 'risk at sea outside Halifax Harbour Limits' exclusion applied because 'risk at sea' denotes the event insured against; the exclusions were clear and not ambiguous so contra proferentem did not apply; therefore the claim was excluded and the appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs