John C. Jackson Ltd. v. Sun Insurance Office Ltd.

John C. Jackson Ltd. v. Sun Insurance Office Ltd.

The appeal was dismissed because there was no "sinking" within the meaning of the policy—the Mina C was saved by timely assistance—so the sinking peril did not operate; the clause refers to sinking of the vessel (including from leaks) and does not extend to cargo loss where the vessel remains afloat, therefore no indemnity payable.

Citation
[1962] SCR 412
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: John C. Jackson Ltd.; Defendants/respondents: Sun Insurance Office Limited; The Home Insurance Company; The Royal Exchange Assurance; Providence Washington Insurance Company; The Prudential Assurance Company Limited
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 April 1962
Procedural Posture
Insurance (marine Insurance) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for British Columbia
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Sinking, Policy Interpretation, Causation, Perils Insured, Loss by Delay/exclusion
Source Language
English
Insurance Marine Law Cargo Loss Sinking Policy Interpretation Causation Perils Insured Loss by Delay/exclusion

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John C. Jackson Ltd.

Plaintiff/appellant

Sun Insurance Office Limited; The Home Insurance Company; The Royal Exchange Assurance; Providence Washington Insurance Company; The Prudential Assurance Company Limited

Defendants/respondents

Procedural Posture

Insurance (marine Insurance) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for British Columbia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the word "sinking" in the policy includes the incident of partial submersion or requires actual sinking of the vessel
  2. 2 Whether the cargo loss was directly caused by a peril insured against
  3. 3 Whether "sinking" can be read as applying to the cargo independent of the vessel

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because there was no "sinking" within the meaning of the policy—the Mina C was saved by timely assistance—so the sinking peril did not operate; the clause refers to sinking of the vessel (including from leaks) and does not extend to cargo loss where the vessel remains afloat, therefore no indemnity payable.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.