Alliance Assurance Company Limited et al. v. Dominion Electric Protection Company Limited

Alliance Assurance Company Limited et al. v. Dominion Electric Protection Company Limited

The defendant did not owe a legal duty to call the fire department promptly to the tenant/insurer; the alleged omission was a failure to perform a contractual obligation to the subscriber/owner and did not satisfy the elements of delictual fault under art. 1053, so no liability to third parties arose; appeal dismissed.

Citation
[1970] SCR 168
Parties
Appellant (plaintiff): Alliance Assurance Company Limited et al.; Respondent (defendant): Dominion Electric Protection Company Limited
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 October 1969
Procedural Posture
Tort Appeal (negligence) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Queen's Bench, Quebec (final Disposition)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Liability for Omissions, Contractual Privity, Subrogation, Automatic Sprinkler Supervisory Service, Limitation of Liability Clauses
Source Language
English
Torts Contract Insurance Negligence Liability for Omissions Contractual Privity Subrogation Automatic Sprinkler Supervisory Service +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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alliance Assurance Company Limited et al.

Appellant (plaintiff)

Dominion Electric Protection Company Limited

Respondent (defendant)

Procedural Posture

Tort Appeal (negligence) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Queen's Bench, Quebec (final Disposition)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the defendant owe a legal duty to third parties (the tenant/insurer) to call the fire department promptly on receipt of sprinkler signals?
  2. 2 Whether the defendant’s omission constituted a fault under Civil Code art. 1053.
  3. 3 Whether a contractual limitation or absence of privity precludes delictual liability to a subrogated insurer.

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant did not owe a legal duty to call the fire department promptly to the tenant/insurer; the alleged omission was a failure to perform a contractual obligation to the subscriber/owner and did not satisfy the elements of delictual fault under art. 1053, so no liability to third parties arose; appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs