Arsenault v. Flewelling (J.M.) Insurance (1974) Ltd. et al., (2006) 304 N.B.R.(2d) 243 (TD)

• Judge: Glennie, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick (Canada)
• Case Date: December 19, 2005
• Jurisdiction: New Brunswick
• Citations: (2006), 304 N.B.R.(2d) 243 (TD);2006 NBQB 212

Arsenault v. Flewelling Ins. (2006), 304 N.B.R.(2d) 243 (TD);

    304 R.N.-B.(2e) 243; 788 A.P.R. 243

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Temp. Cite: [2006] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. JL.001

Edward Arsenault (plaintiff) v. J.M. Flewelling Insurance (1974) Ltd. and Stuart Henry (defendants)

(S/C/725/01; 2006 NBQB 212)

Indexed As: Arsenault v. Flewelling (J.M.) Insurance (1974) Ltd. et al.

New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench

Trial Division

Judicial District of Saint John

Glennie, J.

May 4, 2006.

Summary:

The personal defendant was an insurance broker. The corporate defendant was an insurance agent and the personal defendant's employer. The corporate defendant, as agent, issued an automobile insurance policy to the plaintiff. Coverage under the SEF 44 family endorsement did not exceed liability cover­age. Hence, the plaintiff could not claim under SEF 44 for the compensation he had been unable to recover from an underinsured tortfeasor. The plaintiff sued the defendants for breach of fiduciary duty and negligence. The personal defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the action as against him.

The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, dismissed the motion.

Insurance - Topic 505

Agents - Liability of agent - General - Duty to inform insured of available cover­age - [See Insurance - Topic 632 ].

Insurance - Topic 632

Brokers - Relations with clients - Duties of broker - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, discussed the duty of an insurance agent or broker with respect to the advising and procure­ment of insurance - See paragraphs 27 to 80.

Practice - Topic 5708

Judgments and orders - Summary judg­ments - Bar to application - Existence of issue to be tried - The plaintiff could not claim under the SEF 44 family endorse­ment in his automobile insurance policy because the SEF 44 coverage limits did not exceed the liability coverage limits - The plaintiff sued the corporate insurance agent who issued the policy, and its employee, an insurance broker, for damages for breach of fiduciary duty and negligence - The plaintiff said that he had relied upon the advice and skill of the personal defen­dant as to the amount and degree of pro­tection he required - He asserted that the personal defendant failed to advise him of the coverage available, and in particular, the nature and operation of the SEF 44 endorsement - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, refused to summarily dismiss the action against the personal defendant because dismissal at trial was not a foregone conclusion.

Cases Noticed:

Fine's Flowers Ltd. v. General Accident Assurance Co. of Canada (1977), 17 O.R.(2d) 529; 81 D.L.R.(3d) 139 (C.A.), consd. [para. 30].

Fletcher v. Manitoba Public Insurance Co., [1990] 3 S.C.R. 191; 116 N.R. 1; 71 Man.R.(2d) 81; 44 O.A.C. 81; 74 D.L.R.(4th) 636, consd. [para. 36].

G.K.N. Keller Canada Ltd. v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co. (1983), 1 C.C.L.I. 34 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 40].

Sjodin v. Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, 1986 CarswellBC 621, refd to. [para. 41].

Sportsman's R.V. Resort Blind Bay B.C. Ltd. v. Capri Insurance Services Ltd. et al., [2001] B.C.T.C. 659 (S.C.), revd. (2003), 183 B.C.A.C. 197; 301 W.A.C. 197 (C.A.), consd. [paras. 60, 62].

Engel v. Janzen, [1990] B.C.J. No. 561; 1990 CarswellBC 5 (C.A.), consd. [para. 67].

Mahoney et al. v. Kent General Insurance Corp. et al. (1992), 124 N.B.R.(2d) 352; 312 A.P.R. 352; 1992 CarswellNB 65 (C.A.), affing. (1991), 119 N.B.R.(2d) 408; 300 A.P.R. 408; 1991 CarswellNB 62 (T.D.), consd. [para. 77].

Cannon v. Lange et al. (1998), 203 N.B.R.(2d) 121; 518 A.P.R. 121 (C.A.), consd. [para. 84].

Ripulone v. Pontecorvo (1989), 104 N.B.R.(2d) 56; 261 A.P.R. 56 (C.A.), consd. [para. 85].

Murray et al. v. Moncton (City) (1993), 140 N.B.R.(2d) 282; 358 A.P.R. 282; 1993 CarswellNB 30 (C.A.), consd. [para. 86].

Hunt v. T & N plc et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959; 117 N.R. 321, consd. [para. 86].

Walsh v. Nicholls et al. (2004), 273 N.B.R.(2d) 203; 717 A.P.R. 203 (C.A.), consd. [para. 87].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Annotation to Engel v. Janzen, 1989 Cars­wellBC 545, generally [para. 76].

Brown, Craig, and Menezes, Julio, Insur­ance Law in Canada (4th Ed. 2002), pp. 3-19 [para. 55]; 3-22 [para. 28]; 3-23 [para. 56].

Counsel:

Randy G. Bishop, on behalf of the plain­tiff;

H. David McLellan, on behalf of the de­fendant/moving party, Stuart Henry.

This motion was heard on December 19, 2005, by Glennie, J., of the New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, Judicial District of Saint John, who delivered the following decision orally on May 4, 2006.