Hallé v. The Canadian Indemnity Co.
Under Quebec civil law the omnibus clause constituted a valid stipulation for the benefit of ascertainable third-party drivers under article 1029 C.C.; such third parties have an insurable interest under articles 2468, 2472 and 2474 C.C.; therefore the insurer was obliged to defend and indemnify the appellant as a permitted driver under the policy and the action in warranty was properly brought.
- Citation
- [1937] SCR 368
- Parties
- Appellant (plaintiff in Warranty): Joseph Hallé; Respondent (defendant in Warranty): The Canadian Indemnity Company; Mis En Cause: Rolland Hallé
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 1 June 1937
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal (insurance Liability) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of King’s Bench, Quebec; Judgment on Appeal
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed.
- Legal Topics
- Omnibus Clause, Stipulation for Third Parties, Insurable Interest, Action in Warranty, Automobile Liability
- Source Language
- English
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Joseph Hallé
Appellant (plaintiff in Warranty)
The Canadian Indemnity Company
Respondent (defendant in Warranty)
Rolland Hallé
Mis En Cause
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (insurance Liability) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of King’s Bench, Quebec; Judgment on Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether an omnibus clause creates an enforceable right in an unnamed third-party driver under Quebec civil law
- 2 Whether a stipulation for the benefit of third parties in an insurance policy is valid under article 1029 C.C.
- 3 Whether the policyholder must have an insurable interest in the third party’s liability for the stipulation to be valid
Ratio Decidendi
Under Quebec civil law the omnibus clause constituted a valid stipulation for the benefit of ascertainable third-party drivers under article 1029 C.C.; such third parties have an insurable interest under articles 2468, 2472 and 2474 C.C.; therefore the insurer was obliged to defend and indemnify the appellant as a permitted driver under the policy and the action in warranty was properly brought.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed.
Orders
- Appeal allowed with costs
- Action in warranty and incidental demand maintained with costs throughout
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment