Pense v. Northern Life Assurance Co.

Pense v. Northern Life Assurance Co.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal endorsing the Court of Appeal: the first policy did not automatically convert to paid-up status because the application/payment/surrender provisions were conditions precedent and the policy had lapsed at death; the second policy's clear provision required annual premiums payable on March 20 and therefore had lapsed before death, so no recovery lay under either policy.

Citation
(1908) 42 SCR 246
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff (assignee): Pense; Respondent/defendant: The Northern Life Assurance Co.
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 October 1908
Procedural Posture
Civil Life Insurance Dispute / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Reversing Trial Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Policy Construction, Premium Payment Timing, Forfeiture, Paid Up Policy Conversion, Surrender Value, Conditions Precedent
Source Language
English
Insurance Contract Equity Policy Construction Premium Payment Timing Forfeiture Paid Up Policy Conversion Surrender Value +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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pense

Appellant/plaintiff (assignee)

The Northern Life Assurance Co.

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Life Insurance Dispute / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Reversing Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first policy converted to a paid-up policy without the holder making the specified application and compliance with other conditions
  2. 2 Whether the first policy had lapsed at death for non-payment of the sixth and later premiums
  3. 3 Whether the second policy required annual premiums to be paid in advance after the initial years and therefore had lapsed before death

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal endorsing the Court of Appeal: the first policy did not automatically convert to paid-up status because the application/payment/surrender provisions were conditions precedent and the policy had lapsed at death; the second policy's clear provision required annual premiums payable on March 20 and therefore had lapsed before death, so no recovery lay under either policy.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.