Canadian Casualty and Boiler Ins. Co. v. Boulter, Davies & Co.

Canadian Casualty and Boiler Ins. Co. v. Boulter, Davies & Co.

Majority held the immediate cause of damage to insured property was the accidental discharge or leakage of water from the sprinkler system; the freezing was a remote cause (it caused the pipe to burst but did not directly damage goods) and therefore the freezing exclusion did not bar recovery. In the broker/interim receipt case the interim contract and representations governed because the formal policy with the exclusion was not delivered and accepted before the loss.

Citation
(1907) 39 SCR 558
Parties
Defendant/appellant: Canadian Casualty and Boiler Insurance Company; Plaintiff/respondent: Boulter, Davies & Co.; Plaintiff/respondent: D.D. Hawthorne & Co.
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 December 1907
Procedural Posture
Insurance Appeal / Supreme Court of Canada on Appeal From the Court of Appeal for Ontario
Outcome
Appeals dismissed with costs; judgments for plaintiffs affirmed
Legal Topics
Sprinkler System Leakage, Exclusion Clause (freezing), Construction of Policy, Formation of Contract Via Broker and Interim Receipt
Source Language
English
Insurance Contract Sprinkler System Leakage Exclusion Clause (freezing) Construction of Policy Formation of Contract Via Broker and Interim Receipt

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

Parties

Canadian Casualty and Boiler Insurance Company

Defendant/appellant

Boulter, Davies & Co.

Plaintiff/respondent

D.D. Hawthorne & Co.

Plaintiff/respondent

Procedural Posture

Insurance Appeal / Supreme Court of Canada on Appeal From the Court of Appeal for Ontario

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether loss "resulted from freezing" within the exclusion clause
  2. 2 Whether the insuring clause and the freezing exclusion must be read together and how causation is characterized (immediate vs remote)
  3. 3 Whether an interim receipt/verbal representations created a binding contract when the formal policy was delivered after the loss

Ratio Decidendi

Majority held the immediate cause of damage to insured property was the accidental discharge or leakage of water from the sprinkler system; the freezing was a remote cause (it caused the pipe to burst but did not directly damage goods) and therefore the freezing exclusion did not bar recovery. In the broker/interim receipt case the interim contract and representations governed because the formal policy with the exclusion was not delivered and accepted before the loss.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed with costs; judgments for plaintiffs affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal in Boulter dismissed with costs; judgment for plaintiffs affirmed.
  • Appeal in Hawthorne dismissed with costs; judgment for plaintiffs affirmed.