Henwood v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America

Henwood v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America

Majority held insurer proved materiality: untrue answers about medical consultations bore direct relation to acceptance of risk because senior company officials testified the true facts would have caused a medical examination, higher premium and exclusion of accidental death benefit; therefore policy was avoidable and appeal dismissed.

Citation
[1967] SCR 720
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Margaret I. Henwood; Defendant/respondent: The Prudential Insurance Company of America
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 October 1967
Procedural Posture
Appeal (life Insurance) / On Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario
Outcome
Appeal dismissed (majority); policy avoided for material misrepresentation; Spence J. dissenting
Legal Topics
Misrepresentation, Non Disclosure, Materiality, Insurance Application, Statutory Disclosure S.149(1)
Source Language
English
Insurance Contract Law Life Insurance Underwriting Misrepresentation Non Disclosure Materiality Insurance Application Statutory Disclosure S.149(1)

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Margaret I. Henwood

Plaintiff/appellant

The Prudential Insurance Company of America

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (life Insurance) / On Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether false or omitted answers in the life insurance application constituted misrepresentation/non-disclosure
  2. 2 Whether the misrepresentation/non-disclosure was material to the insurance within s.149(1) of The Insurance Act R.S.O. 1960
  3. 3 Whether the insurer discharged the burden of proving materiality by evidence of its own underwriting practice

Ratio Decidendi

Majority held insurer proved materiality: untrue answers about medical consultations bore direct relation to acceptance of risk because senior company officials testified the true facts would have caused a medical examination, higher premium and exclusion of accidental death benefit; therefore policy was avoidable and appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed (majority); policy avoided for material misrepresentation; Spence J. dissenting

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Policy avoided for material misrepresentation/non-disclosure