Anglo-American Fire Ins. Co. v. Hendry

Anglo-American Fire Ins. Co. v. Hendry

The trial judge's factual findings that the insured's representation regarding a former fire was not material, that the August stock‑taking accurately reflected the stock and that the stock value at fire exceeded the insurance, and that the six‑month limitation clause was an unreasonable variation of the statutory twelve‑month condition were upheld; accordingly the policies were not avoided and plaintiffs' claims succeed.

Citation
(1913) 48 SCR 577
Parties
Defendant Appellant: Anglo-American Fire Insurance Company; Defendant Appellant: The Montreal-Canada Fire Insurance Company; Plaintiff Respondent: Charles A. Hendry; Plaintiff Respondent: The Gault Brothers Company
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 December 1913
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (insurance) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Ontario; Final Disposition
Outcome
Appeals dismissed with costs; judgments of the courts below affirmed in favour of the plaintiffs
Legal Topics
Misrepresentation, Materiality, Limitation Clause, Statutory Conditions, Proofs of Loss, Valuation of Stock
Source Language
English
Insurance Contract Law Evidence Misrepresentation Materiality Limitation Clause Statutory Conditions Proofs of Loss +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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anglo-American Fire Insurance Company

Defendant Appellant

The Montreal-Canada Fire Insurance Company

Defendant Appellant

Charles A. Hendry

Plaintiff Respondent

The Gault Brothers Company

Plaintiff Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (insurance) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Ontario; Final Disposition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether insured's non-disclosure of a prior fire was a material misrepresentation
  2. 2 Whether the insured fraudulently over‑valued the stock-in-trade
  3. 3 Whether a policy clause reducing statutory twelve‑month limitation to six months was just and reasonable

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge's factual findings that the insured's representation regarding a former fire was not material, that the August stock‑taking accurately reflected the stock and that the stock value at fire exceeded the insurance, and that the six‑month limitation clause was an unreasonable variation of the statutory twelve‑month condition were upheld; accordingly the policies were not avoided and plaintiffs' claims succeed.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed with costs; judgments of the courts below affirmed in favour of the plaintiffs

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed with costs
  • Judgment for plaintiffs affirmed for amounts insured with interest and costs of proceedings subsequent to first judgment