Town of Arnprior v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co.

Town of Arnprior v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co.

The written answers by the mayor that 'auditors examine rolls and his vouchers from treasurer yearly' were untrue and were incorporated into the renewal; those misrepresentations were material to the insurer’s risk and, under the Insurance Act and settled law, avoided the bond, so the Appellate Division judgment for the defendant insurer is affirmed and the appeal dismissed.

Citation
(1915) 51 SCR 94
Parties
Appellant; Plaintiff: Town of Arnprior; Respondent; Defendant: United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 February 1915
Procedural Posture
Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada — Insurance/fidelity Bond Dispute / On Appeal From Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Ontario; Final Judgment by Supreme Court of Canada
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment of Appellate Division affirmed in favour of respondent (United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co.)
Legal Topics
Fidelity Bond, Misrepresentation, Materiality, Policy Renewal, Warranty in Insurance Applications, Statutory Audit Obligations
Source Language
English
Insurance Contract Municipal Law Suretyship Statutory Interpretation Fidelity Bond Misrepresentation Materiality +3 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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Town of Arnprior

Appellant; Plaintiff

United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company

Respondent; Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada — Insurance/fidelity Bond Dispute / On Appeal From Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Ontario; Final Judgment by Supreme Court of Canada

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the mayor’s written answers formed part of the renewal bond
  2. 2 Whether those answers were untrue and material misrepresentations avoiding the bond
  3. 3 Whether s.141(2) (R.S.O. 1897 c.203) requires the policy to state that a representation is material

Ratio Decidendi

The written answers by the mayor that 'auditors examine rolls and his vouchers from treasurer yearly' were untrue and were incorporated into the renewal; those misrepresentations were material to the insurer’s risk and, under the Insurance Act and settled law, avoided the bond, so the Appellate Division judgment for the defendant insurer is affirmed and the appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment of Appellate Division affirmed in favour of respondent (United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co.)

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Ontario affirmed