Plourde v. Agricultural Insurance Co.

Plourde v. Agricultural Insurance Co.

Clause 10 is to be reasonably construed; where properly kept books and records, taken as a whole, allow the exact amount of loss to be determined, the inventory warranty is satisfied. The appellant proved his loss and complied with the inventory condition, so the trial judgment in his favour is restored.

Citation
[1962] SCR 637
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: René Plourde; Defendant/respondent: Agricultural Insurance Company; Mis En Cause: The Bank Of Montreal
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 June 1962
Procedural Posture
Appeal and Cross Appeal / Supreme Court of Canada on Appeal From the Court of Queen's Bench, Appeal Side, Province of Quebec
Outcome
Appeal allowed and cross-appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Policy Clause Interpretation, Inventory Warranty Condition, Proof of Loss, Expert Accounting Evidence
Source Language
English
Insurance Theft Contract Interpretation Policy Clause Interpretation Inventory Warranty Condition Proof of Loss Expert Accounting Evidence

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

René Plourde

Plaintiff/appellant

Agricultural Insurance Company

Defendant/respondent

The Bank Of Montreal

Mis En Cause

Procedural Posture

Appeal and Cross Appeal / Supreme Court of Canada on Appeal From the Court of Queen's Bench, Appeal Side, Province of Quebec

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether clause 10 requiring a "detailed and itemized inventory" was fulfilled
  2. 2 Whether the insured established the amount of loss from the robbery
  3. 3 Whether the insurer could deny indemnity for lack of a perpetual or more detailed inventory for certain items

Ratio Decidendi

Clause 10 is to be reasonably construed; where properly kept books and records, taken as a whole, allow the exact amount of loss to be determined, the inventory warranty is satisfied. The appellant proved his loss and complied with the inventory condition, so the trial judgment in his favour is restored.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed and cross-appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Judgment of the trial court (Demers J.) restored.
  • Cross-appeal dismissed.