The North British and Mercantile Ins. Co. v. McLellan

The North British and Mercantile Ins. Co. v. McLellan

Majority: McLellan had an insurable interest in the ice, buildings and tools; the application statements were not shown to be material misrepresentations that would avoid the policy (and even if treated as warranties they were limited by 'so far as known and material' so fact issues went to the jury); defendants failed to plead or properly prove other insurances under policy condition 13 and the secondary evidence was inadmissible — therefore defendants liable under the policy and appeal dismissed.

Citation
(1892) 21 SCR 288
Parties
Defendant/appellant: The North British and Mercantile Insurance Company; Plaintiff/respondent: Harry R. McLellan
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 June 1892
Procedural Posture
Insurance / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada (on Appeal From Supreme Court of New Brunswick)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment for plaintiff affirmed
Legal Topics
Insurable Interest, Warranties Vs Representations in Insurance Applications, Materiality of Misrepresentations, Double/other Insurance and Contribution Clause, Pleading Requirements for Partial Defences, Admissibility of Secondary Evidence
Source Language
English
Insurance Contract Property Evidence Civil Procedure Insurable Interest Warranties Vs Representations in Insurance Applications Materiality of Misrepresentations +3 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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The North British and Mercantile Insurance Company

Defendant/appellant

Harry R. McLellan

Plaintiff/respondent

Procedural Posture

Insurance / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada (on Appeal From Supreme Court of New Brunswick)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did plaintiff have an insurable interest in the ice, houses and implements?
  2. 2 Were the answers in the insurance application warranties incorporated into the policy or mere representations?
  3. 3 If misstatements existed, were they material to the risk?

Ratio Decidendi

Majority: McLellan had an insurable interest in the ice, buildings and tools; the application statements were not shown to be material misrepresentations that would avoid the policy (and even if treated as warranties they were limited by 'so far as known and material' so fact issues went to the jury); defendants failed to plead or properly prove other insurances under policy condition 13 and the secondary evidence was inadmissible — therefore defendants liable under the policy and appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment for plaintiff affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Judgment for plaintiff affirmed