Gore District Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. Samo

Gore District Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. Samo

The policy was an entire, indivisible contract supported by a single consideration; material misrepresentations as to encumbrances and the failure to notify the insurer of a subsequent change in title (mortgage) — as provided by s.36 of 36 Vict., c.44 (Ont.) and by the policy terms — rendered the entire policy void and barred recovery on both building and stock; acts of the agent in procuring and signing the application bound the insureds.

Citation
(1878) 2 SCR 411
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Gore District Mutual Fire Insurance Company; Defendant/respondent: James H. Samo; Defendant/respondent: Thomas Johnston
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 June 1878
Procedural Posture
Insurance (fire) Contract / Final Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario reversed; rule nisi discharged.
Legal Topics
Misrepresentation, Concealment of Encumbrances, Divisibility of Insurance Policy, Agency and Ratification, Voidance of Policy Under Statute
Source Language
English
Insurance Law Contract Law Agency Law Statutory Interpretation Misrepresentation Concealment of Encumbrances Divisibility of Insurance Policy Agency and Ratification +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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gore District Mutual Fire Insurance Company

Plaintiff/appellant

James H. Samo

Defendant/respondent

Thomas Johnston

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Insurance (fire) Contract / Final Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a single policy insuring building and contents is divisible or entire
  2. 2 Whether misstatements/concealment of encumbrances and failure to notify of subsequent mortgage void the entire policy under s.36 36 Vict. c.44 (Ont.) and policy terms
  3. 3 Whether acts/misrepresentations of agents bound the insured

Ratio Decidendi

The policy was an entire, indivisible contract supported by a single consideration; material misrepresentations as to encumbrances and the failure to notify the insurer of a subsequent change in title (mortgage) — as provided by s.36 of 36 Vict., c.44 (Ont.) and by the policy terms — rendered the entire policy void and barred recovery on both building and stock; acts of the agent in procuring and signing the application bound the insureds.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario reversed; rule nisi discharged.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs
  • Rule nisi to enter judgment for respondents discharged