Guardian Insurance Co. of Canada v. Victoria Tire Sales Ltd. et al.

Guardian Insurance Co. of Canada v. Victoria Tire Sales Ltd. et al.

The fleet policy, by its omnibus clause and the parties’ course of dealing, provided third‑party liability coverage for the described vehicles within the limits and premiums referenced to the garage policy; the Q.E.F. No. 73 rider only excluded such coverage under the garage policy and did not negate fleet coverage. Further, Guardian was bound by its authorized representative’s conduct, including issuance of Motor Vehicle Liability Insurance Cards, which confirmed coverage; appeal dismissed.

Citation
[1979] 2 SCR 849
Parties
Appellant / Defendant: Guardian Insurance Company of Canada; Respondent / Plaintiff: Victoria Tire Sales Ltd.; Respondent / Plaintiff: Peter Greenberg
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 October 1979
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal — Insurance Liability / Action in Warranty / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal of Quebec
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Third Party Liability, Policy Construction, Agent Authority and Representations, Insurance Certificates (pink Cards), Omnibus Clause, Estoppel/representation
Source Language
English
Insurance Law Contract Law Agency Law Quebec Civil Law Third Party Liability Policy Construction Agent Authority and Representations Insurance Certificates (pink Cards) +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 6 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Guardian Insurance Company of Canada

Appellant / Defendant

Victoria Tire Sales Ltd.

Respondent / Plaintiff

Peter Greenberg

Respondent / Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal — Insurance Liability / Action in Warranty / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal of Quebec

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the fleet policy or the garage policy governed third party liability for owned vehicles
  2. 2 Whether the Q.E.F. No. 73 rider in the garage policy defeated coverage under the fleet policy
  3. 3 Whether the insurer was bound by representations and conduct of its authorized representative/agent Diamond including issuance of Motor Vehicle Liability Insurance Cards

Ratio Decidendi

The fleet policy, by its omnibus clause and the parties’ course of dealing, provided third‑party liability coverage for the described vehicles within the limits and premiums referenced to the garage policy; the Q.E.F. No. 73 rider only excluded such coverage under the garage policy and did not negate fleet coverage. Further, Guardian was bound by its authorized representative’s conduct, including issuance of Motor Vehicle Liability Insurance Cards, which confirmed coverage; appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Judgment of the Court of Appeal restoring respondents’ action in warranty against appellant