Industrielle, Compagnie d’Assurance Vie v. Bolduc

Industrielle, Compagnie d’Assurance Vie v. Bolduc

Majority held the exclusion clauses cover the insured because his active role in the demonstration had a close relationship to the flight; the exceptions therefore applied and the insurer was not liable for double indemnity.

Citation
[1979] 1 SCR 481
Parties
Appellant / Defendant: L’Industrielle, Compagnie d’Assurance sur la Vie; Respondent / Plaintiff: Dame Cecile Bolduc
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 October 1978
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil Insurance) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Quebec
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Court of Appeal decision reversed; judgment of Superior Court restored in favour of appellant (insurer) on the double indemnity issue
Legal Topics
Life Insurance, Double Indemnity, Insurance Exclusion Clauses, Contract Interpretation, Civil Code Art. 1014
Source Language
English
Insurance Law Contract Law Civil Law Aviation (incidental) Life Insurance Double Indemnity Insurance Exclusion Clauses Contract 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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

L’Industrielle, Compagnie d’Assurance sur la Vie

Appellant / Defendant

Dame Cecile Bolduc

Respondent / Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil Insurance) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Quebec

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the exception excluding deaths occurring while the insured had a function "in relation to such flight" or "relative to the said flight" applied where the insured was to drop objects during a demonstration flight
  2. 2 Proper construction of ambiguous insurance exclusion clauses and the application of Civil Code art. 1014 / contra proferentem

Ratio Decidendi

Majority held the exclusion clauses cover the insured because his active role in the demonstration had a close relationship to the flight; the exceptions therefore applied and the insurer was not liable for double indemnity.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Court of Appeal decision reversed; judgment of Superior Court restored in favour of appellant (insurer) on the double indemnity issue

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Decision of the Court of Appeal for Quebec reversed