Madill v. Chu

Madill v. Chu

Because the exclusionary words are identical to those mandated by The Insurance Act, contra proferentem does not apply; where the agreed facts satisfy the Workmen's Compensation Act entitlement criteria a person is "entitled to receive the benefits" irrespective of whether a formal claim and award exist, and therefore the exclusion operates to bar recovery under the policy in these circumstances.

Citation
[1977] 2 SCR 400
Parties
Plaintiff Appellant: J.A. Madill, in his quality as Attorney in Canada for the Non‑Marine Underwriters, Members of Lloyd's, England; Defendant Respondent: Kuo Chu
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 November 1976
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal — Insurance / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgments below set aside.
Legal Topics
Exclusionary Clause, Disability Benefits, Contra Proferentem, Standard Automobile Policy, Entitlement to Benefits
Source Language
English
Insurance Workmen's Compensation Contract Law Statutory Interpretation Exclusionary Clause Disability Benefits Contra Proferentem Standard Automobile Policy +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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

J.A. Madill, in his quality as Attorney in Canada for the Non‑Marine Underwriters, Members of Lloyd's, England

Plaintiff Appellant

Kuo Chu

Defendant Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal — Insurance / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does exclusion for persons "entitled to receive the benefits of any workmen's compensation law or plan" apply where insured did not file a claim or obtain an award?
  2. 2 Does contra proferentem apply to policy language mandated by statute?
  3. 3 Whether "entitled to receive benefits" is determined by factual entitlement or requires a formal Board award

Ratio Decidendi

Because the exclusionary words are identical to those mandated by The Insurance Act, contra proferentem does not apply; where the agreed facts satisfy the Workmen's Compensation Act entitlement criteria a person is "entitled to receive the benefits" irrespective of whether a formal claim and award exist, and therefore the exclusion operates to bar recovery under the policy in these circumstances.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgments below set aside.

Orders

  • Judgments of the trial court and Court of Appeal set aside
  • Appellant to pay respondent $1960.00