Vézina v. The New York Life Ins. Co.

Vézina v. The New York Life Ins. Co.

Majority held that the policy was a valid contract at inception because Gendron, the insured, applied for insurance for his own benefit and had an insurable interest; the later payment of the premium by a third party and assignment did not render the policy a wager; payment related back to the policy date and the insurer's acceptance of premiums and conduct precluded the wager defence, so the appeal was allowed.

Citation
(1881) 6 SCR 30
Parties
Appellant / Assignee: George Vézina; Respondent / Insurer: The New York Life Insurance Company; Insured / Deceased: Hector Gendron; Original Assignee / Transferor: Edouard Langlois
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 June 1881
Procedural Posture
Life Insurance Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Queen's Bench for Lower Canada (appeal Side)
Outcome
Appeal allowed with costs; judgments of lower courts reversed
Legal Topics
Insurable Interest, Wager Policy, Assignment of Policy, Payment of Premium, Estoppel, Agent Authority
Source Language
English
Insurance Law Contract Law Civil Law (quebec) Insurable Interest Wager Policy Assignment of Policy Payment of Premium Estoppel +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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

George Vézina

Appellant / Assignee

The New York Life Insurance Company

Respondent / Insurer

Hector Gendron

Insured / Deceased

Edouard Langlois

Original Assignee / Transferor

Procedural Posture

Life Insurance Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Queen's Bench for Lower Canada (appeal Side)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the policy was a wagering policy lacking insurable interest and therefore void ab initio
  2. 2 Whether the payment of the premium by a third party and subsequent assignment converted a valid policy into a wager
  3. 3 Whether the insurer was estopped by acceptance of premiums or agent conduct

Ratio Decidendi

Majority held that the policy was a valid contract at inception because Gendron, the insured, applied for insurance for his own benefit and had an insurable interest; the later payment of the premium by a third party and assignment did not render the policy a wager; payment related back to the policy date and the insurer's acceptance of premiums and conduct precluded the wager defence, so the appeal was allowed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed with costs; judgments of lower courts reversed

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs
  • Judgments of the Superior Court and Court of Queen's Bench (appeal side) reversed