London Guarantee and Accident Co. v. Sowards

London Guarantee and Accident Co. v. Sowards

The upset/capsize of the insured automobile resulting in contact with the earth/highway did not constitute an 'accidental collision' with 'any other automobile, vehicle or object' as contemplated by the collision clause; therefore the insurer was not liable and the trial judge's dismissal was restored (appeal allowed).

Citation
[1923] SCR 365
Parties
Appellant (defendant, Insurer): London Guarantee and Accident Company; Respondent (plaintiff, Insured): J.F. Sowards
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 April 1923
Procedural Posture
Insurance Coverage Dispute on Policy Collision Clause / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Ontario
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of Appellate Division reversed; judgment of trial judge dismissing plaintiff's action restored.
Legal Topics
Collision Clause, Insurance Coverage, Ejusdem Generis, Statutory Interpretation of Motor Vehicle Legislation, Insurability of Illegal Acts
Source Language
English
Insurance Law Motor Vehicle Law Contract Interpretation Public Policy Collision Clause Insurance Coverage Ejusdem Generis Statutory Interpretation of Motor Vehicle Legislation +1 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 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

London Guarantee and Accident Company

Appellant (defendant, Insurer)

J.F. Sowards

Respondent (plaintiff, Insured)

Procedural Posture

Insurance Coverage Dispute on Policy Collision Clause / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Ontario

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether capsizing/upsetting and contacting the road/earth is a 'collision' under the policy
  2. 2 Whether the highway or earth qualifies as an 'object' within the meaning of the collision clause
  3. 3 Whether unlawful excessive speed by the driver bars recovery under public policy or statute

Ratio Decidendi

The upset/capsize of the insured automobile resulting in contact with the earth/highway did not constitute an 'accidental collision' with 'any other automobile, vehicle or object' as contemplated by the collision clause; therefore the insurer was not liable and the trial judge's dismissal was restored (appeal allowed).

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of Appellate Division reversed; judgment of trial judge dismissing plaintiff's action restored.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs
  • Judgment of the Appellate Division reversed