Parsons v. Standard Fire Insurance Co.

Parsons v. Standard Fire Insurance Co.

Where a policy on its face permits further insurance to a specified amount, a later policy issued in substitution for a previously allowed like amount (which lapsed) is not a 'subsequent insurance' within statutory condition No.8; non‑notification of that substitution does not avoid the insurer's policy.

Citation
(1880) 5 SCR 233
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: William Parsons; Respondent/defendant: The Standard Fire Insurance Company
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 June 1880
Procedural Posture
Appeal Fire Insurance Policy Dispute / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario (trial in Court of Queen's Bench, Guelph)
Outcome
Appeal allowed with costs; judgment of the Court of Common Pleas (Queen's Bench) reinstated; Court of Appeal judgment reversed; plaintiff's recovery affirmed.
Legal Topics
Subsequent Insurance, Substituted Policy, Policy Conditions, Statutory Condition No.8 R.s.o. Ch.162, Interpretation of Insurance Contracts
Source Language
English
Insurance Law Contract Law Subsequent Insurance Substituted Policy Policy Conditions Statutory Condition No.8 R.s.o. Ch.162 Interpretation of Insurance Contracts

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

Parties

William Parsons

Appellant/plaintiff

The Standard Fire Insurance Company

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal Fire Insurance Policy Dispute / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario (trial in Court of Queen's Bench, Guelph)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a policy issued after an earlier like-for-like policy lapsed constitutes a 'subsequent insurance' under statutory condition No.8
  2. 2 Whether non‑notification/assent by the insurer of the substituted policy avoids the original policy
  3. 3 How to construe the policy language permitting 'further insurance' on its face

Ratio Decidendi

Where a policy on its face permits further insurance to a specified amount, a later policy issued in substitution for a previously allowed like amount (which lapsed) is not a 'subsequent insurance' within statutory condition No.8; non‑notification of that substitution does not avoid the insurer's policy.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed with costs; judgment of the Court of Common Pleas (Queen's Bench) reinstated; Court of Appeal judgment reversed; plaintiff's recovery affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs
  • Judgment of the Court of Common Pleas re‑affirmed