Sun Insurance Office v. Roy

Sun Insurance Office v. Roy

On renewal the description and representations are treated as continuing; where, at renewal, the premises did not answer the insured description or were in process of being vacated and that change was material to the risk and within the assured's knowledge and not notified, the statutory conditions avoid the policy and disentitle the insured to recover.

Citation
[1927] SCR 8
Parties
Defendant; Appellant: Sun Insurance Office of London, England; Defendant; Appellant: Guardian Assurance Company of London, England; Plaintiff; Respondent: Victor G. Roy
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 December 1926
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Hearing and Judgment by the Supreme Court of Canada on Appeal From the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Ontario
Outcome
Appeals allowed; judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Ontario reversed; insured not entitled to recover under the contested policies
Legal Topics
Fire Insurance, Policy Renewal, Misrepresentation and Non‑disclosure, Materiality of Risk, Vacancy, Statutory Conditions
Source Language
English
Insurance Law Contract Law Fire Insurance Policy Renewal Misrepresentation and Non‑disclosure Materiality of Risk Vacancy Statutory Conditions

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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sun Insurance Office of London, England

Defendant; Appellant

Guardian Assurance Company of London, England

Defendant; Appellant

Victor G. Roy

Plaintiff; Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Hearing and Judgment by the Supreme Court of Canada on Appeal From the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Ontario

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a renewal of a fire policy incorporates the original descriptions and representations as of the date of renewal
  2. 2 Whether the premises answered the insured description at the date of the renewal or whether there was a misdescription or omission material to the insurer
  3. 3 Whether a change from occupation to vacancy, known to the insured and not notified, is a change material to the risk that avoids the policy under the Ontario statutory conditions

Ratio Decidendi

On renewal the description and representations are treated as continuing; where, at renewal, the premises did not answer the insured description or were in process of being vacated and that change was material to the risk and within the assured's knowledge and not notified, the statutory conditions avoid the policy and disentitle the insured to recover.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed; judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Ontario reversed; insured not entitled to recover under the contested policies

Orders

  • Appeals allowed with costs
  • Judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Ontario (58 Ont. L.R. 351) reversed