Eichmanis v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company
The court held that the contractual criminal act exclusion unambiguously excludes coverage for injuries caused by criminal acts including criminal negligence; s.118 of the Insurance Act does not prevent enforcement of such an exclusion when the contract otherwise provides; accordingly neither insurer was required to indemnify the plaintiff for damages caused by the insured youth; factual finding that the youth was living in the aunt and uncle's household was upheld and he was not insured under his mother's policy.
- Citation
- 2007 ONCA 92
- Parties
- Plaintiff/respondent/appellant by Way of Cross Appeal: Ryan Eichmanis; Plaintiff/respondent/appellant by Way of Cross Appeal: Bonnie Eichmanis; Plaintiff/respondent/appellant by Way of Cross Appeal: Ken Eichmanis; Plaintiff/respondent/appellant by Way of Cross Appeal: James Eichmanis; Defendant/appellant/respondent by Way of Cross Appeal: The Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company; Defendant/respondent/appellant by Way of Cross Appeal: Commercial Union Canada (CGU/Aviva Canada Inc.)
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 13 February 2007
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision on Cross Appeal From Motion Judge Order
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed in part. Motion judge's ruling that criminal act exclusion did not apply set aside; insurers not required to indemnify; finding that youth was insured under aunt and uncle upheld; finding he was not insured under his mother's policy upheld; Sanderson costs order set aside.
- Legal Topics
- Insurance Coverage, Criminal Act Exclusion, Interpretation of S.118 Insurance Act, Sanderson Costs Order, Household Residence for Policy Coverage
- Source Language
- English
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Ryan Eichmanis
Plaintiff/respondent/appellant by Way of Cross Appeal
Bonnie Eichmanis
Plaintiff/respondent/appellant by Way of Cross Appeal
Ken Eichmanis
Plaintiff/respondent/appellant by Way of Cross Appeal
James Eichmanis
Plaintiff/respondent/appellant by Way of Cross Appeal
The Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company
Defendant/appellant/respondent by Way of Cross Appeal
Commercial Union Canada (CGU/Aviva Canada Inc.)
Defendant/respondent/appellant by Way of Cross Appeal
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision on Cross Appeal From Motion Judge Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether criminal negligence causing bodily harm is a "criminal act" within the policy exclusion
- 2 Whether the youth was "living in the same household" for purposes of homeowners' policy coverage
- 3 Whether s.118 of the Insurance Act limits the operation of a contractual criminal act exclusion
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the contractual criminal act exclusion unambiguously excludes coverage for injuries caused by criminal acts including criminal negligence; s.118 of the Insurance Act does not prevent enforcement of such an exclusion when the contract otherwise provides; accordingly neither insurer was required to indemnify the plaintiff for damages caused by the insured youth; factual finding that the youth was living in the aunt and uncle's household was upheld and he was not insured under his mother's policy.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed in part. Motion judge's ruling that criminal act exclusion did not apply set aside; insurers not required to indemnify; finding that youth was insured under aunt and uncle upheld; finding he was not insured under his mother's policy upheld; Sanderson costs order set aside.
Orders
- Wawanesa's appeal allowed on exclusion; motion judge's order on indemnity set aside
- Ryan P. is insured under the Wawanesa policy of John and Catherine Prystay
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment