Mahomed v. Anchor Fire and Marine Ins. Co.

Mahomed v. Anchor Fire and Marine Ins. Co.

The insurer is bound by the knowledge and actions of its general manager/agent who had authority to accept risks and issue policies; the jury properly found the agent made the apportionment and described the premises, so the insured did not misrepresent values or uses of the premises; over‑valuation did not avoid the policy but limited recovery, therefore the appeal is allowed and judgment entered for the insured.

Citation
(1913) 48 SCR 546
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Mary Mahomed; Defendant/respondent: The Anchor Fire and Marine Insurance Company
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 October 1913
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (insurance) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for British Columbia
Outcome
Appeal allowed with costs; judgment entered for the plaintiff.
Legal Topics
Misrepresentation, Over‑valuation, Agent Knowledge Binding Company, Description of Premises, Apportionment of Coverage
Source Language
English
Insurance Law Agency Law Contract Law Evidence Misrepresentation Over‑valuation Agent Knowledge Binding Company Description of Premises +1 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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mary Mahomed

Plaintiff/appellant

The Anchor Fire and Marine Insurance Company

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (insurance) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for British Columbia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the insured misrepresented the value of stock by over‑valuation or the apportionment
  2. 2 Whether the premises were misdescribed as a "dwelling‑house" when used as a lodging‑house
  3. 3 Whether the general manager/agent's knowledge and acts bind the insurer

Ratio Decidendi

The insurer is bound by the knowledge and actions of its general manager/agent who had authority to accept risks and issue policies; the jury properly found the agent made the apportionment and described the premises, so the insured did not misrepresent values or uses of the premises; over‑valuation did not avoid the policy but limited recovery, therefore the appeal is allowed and judgment entered for the insured.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed with costs; judgment entered for the plaintiff.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs
  • Judgment entered for plaintiff in the amount of $940.05