Gresham Life Assur. Soc. Ltd. v. La Banque d'Hochelaga

Gresham Life Assur. Soc. Ltd. v. La Banque d'Hochelaga

The insurer failed to prove that the insured’s answer was a materially false representation that would have diminished the insurer’s appreciation of the risk or induced refusal to insure; therefore the insurer did not discharge the onus required under Quebec law and the policy claim must be allowed.

Citation
[1926] SCR 313
Parties
Defendant/appellant: Gresham Life Assurance Society Ltd.; Plaintiff/respondent: La Banque D’Hochelaga
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 March 1926
Procedural Posture
Insurance (life Policy Misrepresentation) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of King's Bench, Province of Quebec (appeal Side)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of the Court of King’s Bench (appeal side) and Superior Court affirmed; respondent’s action maintained.
Legal Topics
Misrepresentation, Representation Vs Warranty, Onus of Proof, Materiality of Statements, Characterization of 'sober and Temperate' Habits
Source Language
English
Insurance Contract Law Evidence Misrepresentation Representation Vs Warranty Onus of Proof Materiality of Statements Characterization of 'sober and Temperate' Habits

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gresham Life Assurance Society Ltd.

Defendant/appellant

La Banque D’Hochelaga

Plaintiff/respondent

Procedural Posture

Insurance (life Policy Misrepresentation) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of King's Bench, Province of Quebec (appeal Side)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the applicant’s answer that he had 'sober and temperate habits' false?
  2. 2 If false, was the misrepresentation material — i.e. did it diminish the insurer’s appreciation of the risk or change its object?
  3. 3 Did the insurer prove it was induced by the alleged misrepresentation?

Ratio Decidendi

The insurer failed to prove that the insured’s answer was a materially false representation that would have diminished the insurer’s appreciation of the risk or induced refusal to insure; therefore the insurer did not discharge the onus required under Quebec law and the policy claim must be allowed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of the Court of King’s Bench (appeal side) and Superior Court affirmed; respondent’s action maintained.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Judgment of Court of King’s Bench and Superior Court affirmed