Travelers Indemnity Co. et al. v. Laflèche et al.

Travelers Indemnity Co. et al. v. Laflèche et al.

The Supreme Court held that the father's representation that he was the registered owner in the statutory sense was false; he did not have the ownership, possession, custody or control or the power to permit use of the 1952 Chevrolet. Because the true situation amounted to a material change in the nature of the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1964] SCR 427
Parties
Appellant Insurer: The Travelers Indemnity Company; Appellant Insurer: The Travelers Fire Insurance Company; Respondent Insured/plaintiff: Arthur R. Laflèche, Senior; Respondent Driver/co Plaintiff: Arthur R. Laflèche, Junior
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 March 1964
Procedural Posture
Automobile Insurance Dispute — Action in Warranty/collision Damage / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Quebec Court of Queen's Bench (appeal Division)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; actions against appellants dismissed; trial judge's judgment restored (Abbott J. dissenting)
Legal Topics
Omnibus Clause, Insurable Interest, Material Change of Risk, Statutory Conditions (automobile), Misrepresentation/non Disclosure, Registration of Vehicles
Source Language
english
Insurance Law Contract Law Motor Vehicle Law Omnibus Clause Insurable Interest Material Change of Risk Statutory Conditions (automobile) Misrepresentation/non Disclosure +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Travelers Indemnity Company

Appellant Insurer

The Travelers Fire Insurance Company

Appellant Insurer

Arthur R. Laflèche, Senior

Respondent Insured/plaintiff

Arthur R. Laflèche, Junior

Respondent Driver/co Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Automobile Insurance Dispute — Action in Warranty/collision Damage / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Quebec Court of Queen's Bench (appeal Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a registered owner who is not the true owner has an insurable interest under the policy
  2. 2 Whether transfer of possession/control to the son and related facts constituted a material change in the nature/extent of the risk relieving the insurer of liability
  3. 3 Whether representations/omissions by insured (or his agent/son) concerning ownership/use vitiate the policy and render it void

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the father's representation that he was the registered owner in the statutory sense was false; he did not have the ownership, possession, custody or control or the power to permit use of the 1952 Chevrolet. Because the true situation amounted to a material change in the nature of the insurable interest and involved non-disclosure/misrepresentation, the policy was void as against the insurers under the automobile statutory conditions; the appeals were allowed and the actions against the insurers dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; actions against appellants dismissed; trial judge's judgment restored (Abbott J. dissenting)

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs
  • Judgments of the Court of Queen's Bench in favour of respondents set aside where contrary; judgment of trial judge restored