Continental Insurance Co. v. Dalton Cartage Co.

Continental Insurance Co. v. Dalton Cartage Co.

The insurer (Continental) failed to prove that the exclusion for loss by infidelity applied; the insured (Dalton) failed to satisfy the St. Paul insuring agreement for employee fraud; the civil standard of proof remains balance of probabilities though courts may require more cogent evidence for serious allegations; accordingly the appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed and costs awarded as stated.

Citation
[1982] 1 SCR 164
Parties
Appellant/defendant: The Continental Insurance Company; Respondent/plaintiff: Dalton Cartage Company Limited; Respondent/plaintiff: McPherson Warehousing Company Limited; Respondent/cross Respondent: St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 January 1982
Procedural Posture
Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada (insurance Dispute) / Appeal and Cross Appeal From the Ontario Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Indemnification, Exclusion Clause, Burden of Proof, Infidelity/dishonesty Exclusions, Bailee and Carrier Liability
Source Language
English
Insurance Law Contract Law Evidence Indemnification Exclusion Clause Burden of Proof Infidelity/dishonesty Exclusions Bailee and Carrier Liability

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

Parties

The Continental Insurance Company

Appellant/defendant

Dalton Cartage Company Limited

Respondent/plaintiff

McPherson Warehousing Company Limited

Respondent/plaintiff

St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company

Respondent/cross Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada (insurance Dispute) / Appeal and Cross Appeal From the Ontario Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the insured met the St. Paul policy insuring agreement for employee fraud or dishonesty
  2. 2 Whether the Continental exclusion for loss by infidelity applied to bar recovery
  3. 3 What party bears the onus of proof for exclusions and insuring agreements

Ratio Decidendi

The insurer (Continental) failed to prove that the exclusion for loss by infidelity applied; the insured (Dalton) failed to satisfy the St. Paul insuring agreement for employee fraud; the civil standard of proof remains balance of probabilities though courts may require more cogent evidence for serious allegations; accordingly the appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed and costs awarded as stated.

Court Disposition

Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed with costs.
  • Respondent Dalton entitled to add its costs of the cross-appeal to those payable to it by Continental.