La Capitale Insurance Co. v. Aviscar Inc. et al

La Capitale Insurance Co. v. Aviscar Inc. et al

Owner's policies covering a vehicle located in British Columbia are first loss under s.177(1) of the Insurance Act; Continental's written primary policy in effect at the time of loss (dated Jan 25, 1993) is binding despite prior or subsequent advices or post‑loss endorsements and must respond after ICBC to its...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2000 BCSC 666
Parties
Petitioner: La Capitale Insurance Company; Respondent: Aviscar Inc.; Respondent: Insurance Corporation of British Columbia; Respondent: Continental Casualty Company; Respondent: National Union Fire Assurance; Respondent: Gordon Fisher
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 April 2000
Procedural Posture
Declaratory Judgment on Priority of Motor Vehicle Liability Insurance Coverage / Reasons for Judgment Following Application Hearing
Outcome
Declaratory judgment determining priority of insurers: ICBC first to $200,000; Continental next to $1,000,000; National Union next to $25,000,000; La Capitale is excess beyond those limits; Continental and National Union may not recover indemnity from La Capitale or Gordon Fisher.
Legal Topics
Priority of Insurance Coverage, Owner's Policy Vs Driver's Policy, Post‑loss Endorsements, Subrogation and Indemnity Recovery, Application of Provincial Statutes to Foreign Policies
Source Language
english
Insurance Law Motor Vehicle Law Civil Procedure Statutory Interpretation Priority of Insurance Coverage Owner's Policy Vs Driver's Policy Post‑loss Endorsements Subrogation and Indemnity Recovery +1 more

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

La Capitale Insurance Company

Petitioner

Aviscar Inc.

Respondent

Insurance Corporation of British Columbia

Respondent

Continental Casualty Company

Respondent

National Union Fire Assurance

Respondent

Gordon Fisher

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Declaratory Judgment on Priority of Motor Vehicle Liability Insurance Coverage / Reasons for Judgment Following Application Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the order of priority among ICBC, Continental, National Union and La Capitale for indemnifying claims arising from the June 30, 1994 collision?
  2. 2 Are post‑loss endorsements or advices altering Continental's coverage valid and admissible to the prejudice of the insured?
  3. 3 Can Continental or National Union recover indemnity payments from the driver, Gordon Fisher, or from La Capitale?

Ratio Decidendi

Owner's policies covering a vehicle located in British Columbia are first loss under s.177(1) of the Insurance Act; Continental's written primary policy in effect at the time of loss (dated Jan 25, 1993) is binding despite prior or subsequent advices or post‑loss endorsements and must respond after ICBC to its $1,000,000 limit; National Union's policy is excess over Continental and ICBC to its $25,000,000 limit; La Capitale's Quebec driver's policy is excess to those owner policies; insurers may not recover indemnity payments from Fisher or La Capitale absent insured breach.

Court Disposition

Declaratory judgment determining priority of insurers: ICBC first to $200,000; Continental next to $1,000,000; National Union next to $25,000,000; La Capitale is excess beyond those limits; Continental and National Union may not recover indemnity from La Capitale or Gordon Fisher.

Orders

  • ICBC's owner's policy is primary to its limits for claims arising from the June 30, 1994 accident.
  • Continental Casualty Company's policy is the next insurer after ICBC and must pay amounts in excess of ICBC's limits up to the Continental policy limit.