Jordan v. Provincial Provident Institution

Jordan v. Provincial Provident Institution

The policy properly incorporated the application and medical examination; compliance with s.33(1) was satisfied and s.33(2) must be read with s.33(3) so that only misrepresentations subsequently judicially found to be material will void the policy; material misrepresentations will avoid the policy even if made in good faith; the insurer was entitled to rescind on discovery and return the premium, and the jury’s finding of material untrue answers warranted dismissal of plaintiffs’ action.

Citation
(1898) 28 SCR 554
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Michael James Jordan et al.; Respondent/defendant: The Provincial Provident Institution
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 June 1898
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Court of Appeal for Ontario — Action on Life Insurance Policy / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada; Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of Court of Appeal for Ontario affirmed; action dismissed
Legal Topics
Misrepresentation, Warranty, Materiality, Policy Cancellation, Return of Premium, Incorporation of Proposal Into Policy
Source Language
English
Insurance Contract Statutory Interpretation Civil Procedure Misrepresentation Warranty Materiality Policy Cancellation +2 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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael James Jordan et al.

Appellant/plaintiff

The Provincial Provident Institution

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Court of Appeal for Ontario — Action on Life Insurance Policy / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada; Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether statements in the written proposal and medical examination formed warranties incorporated into the policy
  2. 2 Whether the insurer complied with Ontario Insurance Act s.33 requirements for conditions and warranties to be enforceable
  3. 3 Whether innocent (non‑fraudulent) misrepresentations, if material, void the policy

Ratio Decidendi

The policy properly incorporated the application and medical examination; compliance with s.33(1) was satisfied and s.33(2) must be read with s.33(3) so that only misrepresentations subsequently judicially found to be material will void the policy; material misrepresentations will avoid the policy even if made in good faith; the insurer was entitled to rescind on discovery and return the premium, and the jury’s finding of material untrue answers warranted dismissal of plaintiffs’ action.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of Court of Appeal for Ontario affirmed; action dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Judgment below (dismissal of plaintiffs' action with costs) affirmed