Booth v. B.C. Life & Casualty Co.

Booth v. B.C. Life & Casualty Co.

The exclusion 11(g) applies because 'self-inflicted' is properly read as 'self-caused' and the express words 'whether intentional or unintentional' include accidental self-caused injuries sustained while intoxicated; the clause therefore clearly and explicitly excludes accidental death benefits in these circumstances and is not ambiguous requiring contra proferentem.

Citation
2004 BCCA 133
Parties
Respondent (plaintiff): Jeffrey David Booth; Respondent (plaintiff): Daniel Roderick Booth; Appellant (defendant): British Columbia Life and Casualty Company
Court
British Columbia Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 March 2004
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; plaintiffs' claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Policy Interpretation, Exclusion Clauses, Accidental Death Benefit, Intoxication Exclusion, Causation, Contra Proferentem
Source Language
English
Insurance Contract Policy Interpretation Exclusion Clauses Accidental Death Benefit Intoxication Exclusion Causation Contra Proferentem

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jeffrey David Booth

Respondent (plaintiff)

Daniel Roderick Booth

Respondent (plaintiff)

British Columbia Life and Casualty Company

Appellant (defendant)

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether exclusion 11(g) applies where insured suffered fatal injury while intoxicated and the injury was self-caused but not intentional
  2. 2 What is the meaning of "self-inflicted injury" when modified by "unintentional"
  3. 3 Whether any ambiguity requires construing the exclusion contra proferentem in favour of the insured

Ratio Decidendi

The exclusion 11(g) applies because 'self-inflicted' is properly read as 'self-caused' and the express words 'whether intentional or unintentional' include accidental self-caused injuries sustained while intoxicated; the clause therefore clearly and explicitly excludes accidental death benefits in these circumstances and is not ambiguous requiring contra proferentem.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; plaintiffs' claim dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Trial judgment set aside to the extent it found exclusion 11(g) inapplicable