Co-operative Fire and Casualty Co. v. Twa et al.

Co-operative Fire and Casualty Co. v. Twa et al.

The majority held that "automobile" as used in the endorsement included motorcycles under the Alberta Insurance Act definition; because the endorsement refers to "the automobile" described in the policy, the described 1968 Triumph motor bike (equipped with a passenger seat) was a private passenger type and thus not within the exclusion. Therefore the passenger hazard exclusion did not apply and the insurer remained liable for the judgment amount against the insured's estate.

Citation
[1975] 1 SCR 97
Parties
Appellant (defendant): Co-operative Fire and Casualty Company; Respondent (plaintiff): Daniel Twa; Respondent (defendant by Order): Administrator of the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Act
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 October 1973
Procedural Posture
Appeal Insurance (motor Vehicle Liability) / Supreme Court of Canada (on Appeal From Supreme Court of Alberta, Appellate Division)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs (majority). Dissent would have allowed appeal and declared no coverage.
Legal Topics
Passenger Hazard Exclusion, Policy Interpretation, Definition of Automobile, Third Party Indemnity Under Motor Vehicle Insurance
Source Language
English
Insurance Motor Vehicle Law Contract Law Passenger Hazard Exclusion Policy Interpretation Definition of Automobile Third Party Indemnity Under Motor Vehicle Insurance

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Co-operative Fire and Casualty Company

Appellant (defendant)

Daniel Twa

Respondent (plaintiff)

Administrator of the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Act

Respondent (defendant by Order)

Procedural Posture

Appeal Insurance (motor Vehicle Liability) / Supreme Court of Canada (on Appeal From Supreme Court of Alberta, Appellate Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the word "automobile" in the passenger hazard excluded endorsement includes a motorcycle
  2. 2 Whether the insured motorcycle is of the "private passenger" type for the purpose of the endorsement and thus excluded or included from passenger hazard exclusion
  3. 3 Whether extrinsic evidence of mutual intention/rectification was admissible to alter the written endorsement

Ratio Decidendi

The majority held that "automobile" as used in the endorsement included motorcycles under the Alberta Insurance Act definition; because the endorsement refers to "the automobile" described in the policy, the described 1968 Triumph motor bike (equipped with a passenger seat) was a private passenger type and thus not within the exclusion. Therefore the passenger hazard exclusion did not apply and the insurer remained liable for the judgment amount against the insured's estate.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs (majority). Dissent would have allowed appeal and declared no coverage.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.