Commercial Union Assurance Co. v. Temple

Commercial Union Assurance Co. v. Temple

The policy condition did not void the policy because no valid subsequent insurance existed at the time of the fire—the Quebec company's acceptance was not communicated to the assured until after the loss—and a notice requirement cannot be construed to impose liability to notify of an insurance of which the assured...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
(1898) 29 SCR 206
Parties
Defendant/appellant: Commercial Union Assurance Company; Plaintiff/respondent: Thomas A. Temple
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 November 1898
Procedural Posture
Insurance Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Supreme Court of New Brunswick
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of the Supreme Court of New Brunswick affirmed
Legal Topics
Fire Insurance, Notice of Subsequent Insurance, Policy Conditions, Voidance Clause, Communication of Acceptance
Source Language
english
Insurance Contract Fire Insurance Notice of Subsequent Insurance Policy Conditions Voidance Clause Communication of Acceptance

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Commercial Union Assurance Company

Defendant/appellant

Thomas A. Temple

Plaintiff/respondent

Procedural Posture

Insurance Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Supreme Court of New Brunswick

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a policy condition requiring the insured to 'forthwith' give notice of subsequent insurance voids the policy when the assured did not know of acceptance before the loss
  2. 2 Whether an insurer's board resolution or acceptance creates a binding insurance prior to communication to the assured
  3. 3 Proper interpretation of 'forthwith' in insurance policy conditions

Ratio Decidendi

The policy condition did not void the policy because no valid subsequent insurance existed at the time of the fire—the Quebec company's acceptance was not communicated to the assured until after the loss—and a notice requirement cannot be construed to impose liability to notify of an insurance of which the assured could not have had knowledge.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of the Supreme Court of New Brunswick affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs