Standard Marine Insurance Co. v. Whelan Pulp and Paper Mills, Ltd.

Standard Marine Insurance Co. v. Whelan Pulp and Paper Mills, Ltd.

Appeal dismissed: insurer was bound by the floating policy because the respondent complied with the policy's declaration and premium conditions, there was no evidence respondent knew the barge was unseaworthy, and non-disclosure of a prior refusal to insure (a fact arising after formation or within local practice) did not vitiate the contract or make the payment recoverable as a mistake of fact.

Citation
(1922) 64 SCR 90
Parties
Appellant (plaintiff): Standard Marine Insurance Company; Respondent (defendant): Whelan Pulp and Paper Mills, Ltd.
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 June 1922
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal Insurance (marine) / Supreme Court of Canada on Appeal From the Court of Appeal for British Columbia
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia affirmed.
Legal Topics
Non Disclosure, Floating Policy, Unseaworthiness, Mistake of Fact, Seaworthiness Warranty, Subrogation, Premium Declaration
Source Language
English
Insurance Law Marine Insurance Contract Law Non Disclosure Floating Policy Unseaworthiness Mistake of Fact Seaworthiness Warranty +2 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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Standard Marine Insurance Company

Appellant (plaintiff)

Whelan Pulp and Paper Mills, Ltd.

Respondent (defendant)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal Insurance (marine) / Supreme Court of Canada on Appeal From the Court of Appeal for British Columbia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether insurer can recover insurance monies paid where insured allegedly knew vessel was unseaworthy or uninsurable
  2. 2 Whether insured had a duty to disclose facts arising after the formation of a floating policy
  3. 3 Whether payment by insurer was made under a recoverable mistake of fact

Ratio Decidendi

Appeal dismissed: insurer was bound by the floating policy because the respondent complied with the policy's declaration and premium conditions, there was no evidence respondent knew the barge was unseaworthy, and non-disclosure of a prior refusal to insure (a fact arising after formation or within local practice) did not vitiate the contract or make the payment recoverable as a mistake of fact.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.