Carter v. Intact Insurance Company

Carter v. Intact Insurance Company

The definition of 'replacement' in the policy requires that any replacement, however effected, be a new property of like kind and quality to the insured property to trigger replacement cost; because the appellants' proposed condominium is not of like kind and quality they are entitled only to actual cash value and not to building code upgrade amounts which require like height, floor area, style and occupancy.

Citation
2016 ONCA 917
Parties
Plaintiff (appellant): Helene Carter; Plaintiff (appellant): Edmond Blais; Plaintiff (appellant): Donald Givogue; Defendant (respondent): Intact Insurance Company
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 December 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (insurance Coverage) / Appeal From Motion Judgment of Superior Court of Justice
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Replacement Cost Coverage, Building by Law (code) Coverage, Policy Interpretation, Moral Hazard
Source Language
English
Insurance Law Contract Law Property Law Civil Procedure Replacement Cost Coverage Building by Law (code) Coverage Policy Interpretation Moral Hazard

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Helene Carter

Plaintiff (appellant)

Edmond Blais

Plaintiff (appellant)

Donald Givogue

Plaintiff (appellant)

Intact Insurance Company

Defendant (respondent)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (insurance Coverage) / Appeal From Motion Judgment of Superior Court of Justice

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the insured is entitled to replacement cost where proposed replacement is not a new property of like kind and quality to the insured property
  2. 2 Whether insured is entitled to building code upgrade amounts where proposed replacement differs in height, floor area, style or occupancy

Ratio Decidendi

The definition of 'replacement' in the policy requires that any replacement, however effected, be a new property of like kind and quality to the insured property to trigger replacement cost; because the appellants' proposed condominium is not of like kind and quality they are entitled only to actual cash value and not to building code upgrade amounts which require like height, floor area, style and occupancy.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Appellants are entitled only to actual cash value which has been paid