Comer v. Bussell et al.

Comer v. Bussell et al.

Section 198 must be interpreted subject to the definition of 'owner's policy' in s.183(g); because Seaman did not 'own' the automobile in the statutory sense, Kowaluk was not insured under s.198 and therefore the plaintiff cannot recover insurance money under s.205—appeal dismissed.

Citation
[1940] SCR 506
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: John Comer; Respondents/defendants: F.R. Bussell and Others (Lloyd's)
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 June 1940
Procedural Posture
Creditor's Action Under S.205 Insurance Act; Appeal From Court of Appeal for Ontario / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada; Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Motor Vehicle Liability, Owner's Policy Definition, Consent to Use Vehicle, Insurer Liability Under Ss.198 and 205
Source Language
English
Insurance Tort Statutory Interpretation Motor Vehicle Liability Owner's Policy Definition Consent to Use Vehicle Insurer Liability Under Ss.198 and 205

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Comer

Appellant/plaintiff

F.R. Bussell and Others (Lloyd's)

Respondents/defendants

Procedural Posture

Creditor's Action Under S.205 Insurance Act; Appeal From Court of Appeal for Ontario / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada; Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the driver (Kowaluk) was insured under s.198 of the Insurance Act despite not being named in the policy
  2. 2 Whether Seaman was the 'owner' of the automobile within the statutory definition of 'owner's policy' in s.183(g)
  3. 3 Whether plaintiff could recover insurance money under s.205 against the insurer

Ratio Decidendi

Section 198 must be interpreted subject to the definition of 'owner's policy' in s.183(g); because Seaman did not 'own' the automobile in the statutory sense, Kowaluk was not insured under s.198 and therefore the plaintiff cannot recover insurance money under s.205—appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondents.