Hyde v. Lefaivre et al.

Hyde v. Lefaivre et al.

The insured failed to furnish the written proof of loss required by the policy within the fourteen day period and no valid written extension or written waiver by the company's managers was shown; unauthorized acts or silence by officers or volunteers do not bind the insurer or constitute waiver; therefore the insurer could enforce the condition precedent and the action was barred.

Citation
(1902) 32 SCR 474
Parties
Appellant (defendant): John Hyde, liquidator to the Victoria-Montreal Fire Insurance Company; Respondents (plaintiffs): George Lefaivre and Leonce Taschereau, joint curators of the estate of Geo. Brown
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 June 1902
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal — Insurance Contract / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From Court of King's Bench, Province of Quebec (appeal Side)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of Court of King's Bench (appeal side) reversed; judgment of the Superior Court restored; respondents' action dismissed; costs awarded to appellant.
Legal Topics
Proof of Loss, Condition Precedent, Waiver, Authority of Agents, Forfeiture, Limitation
Source Language
English
Insurance Contract Agency Law Civil Procedure Proof of Loss Condition Precedent Waiver Authority of Agents +2 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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Hyde, liquidator to the Victoria-Montreal Fire Insurance Company

Appellant (defendant)

George Lefaivre and Leonce Taschereau, joint curators of the estate of Geo. Brown

Respondents (plaintiffs)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal — Insurance Contract / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From Court of King's Bench, Province of Quebec (appeal Side)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether insured furnished required proof of loss within the 14 days stipulated by the policy
  2. 2 Whether the insurer waived the policy conditions by conduct or communications of its officers or agents
  3. 3 Whether unauthorized acts or silence by company officers can bind the insurer or constitute waiver

Ratio Decidendi

The insured failed to furnish the written proof of loss required by the policy within the fourteen day period and no valid written extension or written waiver by the company's managers was shown; unauthorized acts or silence by officers or volunteers do not bind the insurer or constitute waiver; therefore the insurer could enforce the condition precedent and the action was barred.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of Court of King's Bench (appeal side) reversed; judgment of the Superior Court restored; respondents' action dismissed; costs awarded to appellant.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Judgment of Court of King's Bench (appeal side) reversed