Norwich Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Kavanagh

Norwich Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Kavanagh

The Court held that evidence and award for mutilated policy copy books took the defendant by surprise and therefore the $200 item should be disallowed, but the defendant could not claim surprise as to the Goad plans because he and his staff had themselves erased the annotations, so the Superior Court's award of $2,000 for replacement of the plans was restored.

Citation
(1905) 36 SCR 7
Parties
Appellant (plaintiff): The Norwich Union Fire Insurance Society; Respondent (defendant): Walter Kavanagh
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 March 1905
Procedural Posture
Revendication (saisie Revendication) for Books, Documents and Damages / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of King's Bench (quebec); Review of Trial Judgment on Damages
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part. Superior Court judgment restored as to $2,000 award for replacement of Goad plans; $200 deducted for surprise relating to policy copy books; costs awarded to appellants in all courts.
Legal Topics
Revendication, Saisie Revendication, Pleading Requirements, Surprise (surprise in Pleadings), Judgment Secundum Allegata Et Probata, Damages for Destruction or Mutilation of Property
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Property Insurance Law Evidence Civil Appeals Revendication Saisie Revendication Pleading Requirements +3 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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Norwich Union Fire Insurance Society

Appellant (plaintiff)

Walter Kavanagh

Respondent (defendant)

Procedural Posture

Revendication (saisie Revendication) for Books, Documents and Damages / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of King's Bench (quebec); Review of Trial Judgment on Damages

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether evidence of mutilation and related damages was properly admissible where not specifically pleaded and thus whether defendant was taken by surprise
  2. 2 Whether defendant who himself mutilated or erased plaintiffs' records can claim surprise and thereby avoid condemnation for value of destroyed property
  3. 3 Proper measure and assessment of damages for replacement of mutilated plans and policy copy books

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that evidence and award for mutilated policy copy books took the defendant by surprise and therefore the $200 item should be disallowed, but the defendant could not claim surprise as to the Goad plans because he and his staff had themselves erased the annotations, so the Superior Court's award of $2,000 for replacement of the plans was restored.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part. Superior Court judgment restored as to $2,000 award for replacement of Goad plans; $200 deducted for surprise relating to policy copy books; costs awarded to appellants in all courts.

Orders

  • Restore Superior Court judgment insofar as it awarded $2,000 for replacement of Goad plans
  • Deduct $200 from the original $2,200 award in respect of policy copy books due to defendant's surprise