James Richardson & Sons, Ltd. v. Standard Marine Insurance Co. Ltd.

James Richardson & Sons, Ltd. v. Standard Marine Insurance Co. Ltd.

Majority: insurer was liable for a proportionate partial loss calculated by comparing the gross produce of damaged sales with the sound value (per art. 2535 C.C. / s.71 MIA) and applying that percentage to the insured value fixed by the certificate; applying that rule produced a recoverable indemnity of $8,544.79;...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1936] SCR 573
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: James Richardson & Sons, Ltd.; Defendant/respondent: Standard Marine Insurance Co. Ltd.
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 May 1936
Procedural Posture
Marine Cargo Insurance Appeal / Supreme Court of Canada on Appeal From Court of King’s Bench, Quebec
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; cross-appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Marine Cargo Insurance, Partial Loss Valuation, Sue and Labour Clause, Agency/authority of Surveyor, Valued Policy Vs Open Policy
Source Language
english
Maritime Law Insurance Law Commercial Law Marine Cargo Insurance Partial Loss Valuation Sue and Labour Clause Agency/authority of Surveyor Valued Policy Vs Open Policy

Source-derived case record

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Richardson & Sons, Ltd.

Plaintiff/appellant

Standard Marine Insurance Co. Ltd.

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Marine Cargo Insurance Appeal / Supreme Court of Canada on Appeal From Court of King’s Bench, Quebec

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did damage arise from an external cause giving rise to insurer liability?
  2. 2 What is the correct measure of loss under the certificate/policy (timing and method of valuation)?
  3. 3 Did the calling for bids/accepted bid by parties/surveyor fix the amount of damage or alter statutory valuation rules?

Ratio Decidendi

Majority: insurer was liable for a proportionate partial loss calculated by comparing the gross produce of damaged sales with the sound value (per art. 2535 C.C. / s.71 MIA) and applying that percentage to the insured value fixed by the certificate; applying that rule produced a recoverable indemnity of $8,544.79; the calling for bids and acceptance by the insurer's local representatives fixed the damaged sale value for assessment purposes but did not displace the statutory percentage method; the sue and labour clause could not be invoked by the respondent to alter that result.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; cross-appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Declare appellant entitled to an indemnity of $8,544.79 under the policy
  • Order that indemnity of $8,544.79 is compensated by the sum of $11,938.42 admittedly owing by appellant to respondent (netting to respondent's credit as ordered)