Ontario Metal Products Co. v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., [1924] S.C.R. 35 (1923)

Supreme Court of Canada

Ontario Metal Products Co. v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., [1924] S.C.R. 35

Date: 1923-12-04

Ontario Metal Products Company (Plaintiff) Appellant;

and

The Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York (Defendant) Respondent.

1923: November 13, 14; 1923: December 4.

ON APPEAL FROM THE APPELLATE DIVISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF ONTARIO.

Insurance, Life-Application-Statements by insured-Non-disclosure-Materiality-R.S.O. [1914] c. 183, Insurance Act-5 Geo. V, c. 20, s. 19 (O).

The Ontario Insurance Act Co., sec. 156 (5), provides that no inaccuracy in the statements contained in an application for insurance shall avoid the policy unless it is material to the contract. A policy of life insurance declared that "the policy and the application * * * constitute the entire contract between the parties" and that the statements made by the insured should "be deemed representations and not warranties." In his application the insured declared that the statements and answers to the Medical Examiner were true and were offered to induce the company to issue the policy. The Medical Examiner by question 17 asked: What illnesses, diseases, injuries or surgical operations have you had since childhood. Give the number of attacks, dates, duration, severity, etc., of each? 18. State every physician who prescribed for you or treated you or whom you consulted in the preceding five years, and the nature of the complaints with full details under question 17. In reply to questions 19 and 20 the insured declared that he had answered the first two questions fully.

Held, that questions 17 to 20 must be read together; that the insured was only required by Q. 18 to state what physicians had prescribed for or treated him or had been consulted in respect to the illnesses, etc., to be specified under Q. 17 which did not comprise those which could be termed trivial ailments.

APPEAL from the decision of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Ontario reversing the judgment at the trial in favour of the appellant.

The facts are stated in the above head-note.

R.S. Robertson K.C. and Lionel Davis for the appellant.

Hellmuth K.C. and Arnoldi K.C. for the respondent.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE.-I would allow this appeal with costs here and in the Division Court, and restore the judgment of the trial judge.

I concur in the reasons stated by my brother Anglin J.

IDINGTON J.-I so, in the main, agree with the reasoning of the learned trial judge and his conclusion of fact in light of the relevant law to be applied thereto,, and so entirely with the reasoning of the learned Chief Justice of the Common P...

If you are already a vLex customer, Access Here