Branco v. American Home Assurance Co. et al., 2015 SKCA 71

JudgeRichards, C.J.S., Lane and Herauf, JJ.A.
CourtCourt of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
Case DateJune 19, 2015
JurisdictionSaskatchewan
Citations2015 SKCA 71;(2015), 460 Sask.R. 176 (CA)

Branco v. Am. Home Assurance (2015), 460 Sask.R. 176 (CA);

    639 W.A.C. 176

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] Sask.R. TBEd. JN.052

Zurich Life Insurance Company Limited (appellant/respondent by cross-appeal/defendant) and American Home Assurance Company (appellant/respondent by cross-appeal/defendant) and Kumtor Operating Company (appellant/defendant) v. Luciano Branco (respondent/appellant by cross-appeal/plaintiff) and Cameco Corporation (non-party defendant)

(CACV2404, CACV2405, CACV2505)

Luciano Branco (appellant/plaintiff) v. v. American Home Assurance Company, Zurich Life Insurance Company Limited and Kumtor Operating Company (respondents/defendants) and Cameco Corporation (non-party/defendant)

(CACV2529; 2015 SKCA 71)

Indexed As: Branco v. American Home Assurance Co. et al.

Saskatchewan Court of Appeal

Richards, C.J.S., Lane and Herauf, JJ.A.

June 19, 2015.

Summary:

Branco injured his right foot while working as a welder for the Kumtor Operating Co. in Kyrgyzstan. He had not worked since March 2000. Branco started this action in 2001. He claimed that American Home Assurance (AIG) and Zurich Life Insurance wrongfully denied him disability and medical benefits, and that Kumtor and its parent company breached the employment contract by not providing disability and medical benefits. The issues included evidentiary and choice of law issues, whether AIG and Zurich breached the duty of good faith and fair dealing, whether Branco was entitled to aggravated damages for mental distress, and whether punitive damages should be awarded.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at (2013), 416 Sask.R. 77, assessed punitive damages against Zurich in the amount of $3 million, and against AIG in the amount of $1.5 million. The trial judge assessed aggravated damages against Zurich in the amount of $300,000, and against AIG in the amount of $150,000. Both AIG and Zurich failed to deal with Branco's claim in good faith. In his separate ruling on costs, reported at (2013), 435 Sask.R. 137, the trial judge rejected Branco's request for costs on a full indemnification basis and assessed costs against Zurich, AIG and Kumtor on a multiple of five times the highest column of the tariff. Zurich, AIG and Kumtor appealed on a variety of points. Branco cross-appealed on the question of costs.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and dismissed the cross-appeal. The trial judge made important factual and legal errors. In light of them, the Court: (a) set aside the finding that AIG owed Branco for unpaid benefits; (b) reduced the punitive damages award against AIG to $175,000; (c) reduced the mental distress damages award against AIG to $15,000; (d) reduced the punitive damages award against Zurich to $500,000; (e) reduced the mental distress damages award against Zurich to $30,000; (f) made a minor change to Kumtor's obligation to pay medical costs; and (g) reduced the costs award against Kumtor.

Conflict of Laws - Topic 51

Application of foreign law - Bars - Public or moral law of lex fori (public policy) - [See fourth Conflict of Laws - Topic 7245 ].

Conflict of Laws - Topic 7245

Contracts - Choice of law - Insurance contracts - The defendant insurer (Zurich) argued that, by virtue of article 12 of the policy of insurance between it and the defendant Kumtor, Swiss law governed the plaintiff's claim and punitive damages could not be awarded against it because Swiss law did not contemplate such damages - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal stated that "[T]here can be no doubt that, by virtue of article 12, Swiss law governs disputes between Zurich and Kumtor. Nonetheless, it is not clear whether the same result follows for a claim made by a beneficiary under the coverage provided pursuant to the contract. ... It seems to me that an insurer who wishes to dictate the law which will govern claims made by beneficiaries under a policy of insurance should do so expressly. ... Zurich did not do this and, as a consequence, I am most reluctant to read its contract with Kumtor as involving the significant limitation on Mr. Branco's rights that would flow from a denial of punitive damages." - As a result, the Court agreed with the trial judge's conclusion that article 12 of the policy did not govern the choice of law in this case - See paragraphs 148 to 158.

Conflict of Laws - Topic 7245

Contracts - Choice of law - Insurance contracts - The defendant insurer (Zurich) argued that, by virtue of article 12 of the policy of insurance between it and the defendant Kumtor, Swiss law governed the plaintiff's claim - The trial judge determined that Saskatchewan law was the appropriate law to apply, by the application of the "real and substantial connection test" - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal disagreed with the trial judge's conclusion - "First, the trial judge erred by using a 'real and substantial connection' test. This standard is applicable, not to choice of law issues, but to questions relating to the doctrine of forum non conveniens and the enforceability of foreign judgments. ... The approach applicable here is the 'closest and most substantial connection' test. ... Second, the trial judge made a significant factual error with respect to one of the factors he considered in determining the applicable law. More specifically, and contrary to what the judge concluded, disability benefits under the Zurich policy are not based on Saskatchewan Workers' Compensation Board benefits. It is the benefits under the AIG policy that are framed in those terms. Third, the trial judge's analysis of the factors relevant to the choice of law issue was incomplete. An appropriate consideration of the question must take into account a wider variety of factors than what he considered." - See paragraphs 159 to 162.

Conflict of Laws - Topic 7245

Contracts - Choice of law - Insurance contracts - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal held that the following factors established that Swiss law, not Saskatchewan law, governed the plaintiff's claim: (a) domicil/residence of the parties and location of head offices; (b) place where the claim rose; (c) place where the contract was to be performed; (d) style in which the contract was drafted; (e) where the contract was made; and (f) other factors - "[T]he combined effect of these various factors establishes that Swiss law governs Mr. Branco's claim. It is a claim, after all, brought by a Portuguese resident against a Swiss insurer in relation to an injury sustained in Kyrgyzstan. The benefits in question were administered by Zurich in Switzerland pursuant to a contract of insurance governed, at least as between Zurich and Kumtor, by Swiss law. All of the obligations owed by Zurich to Mr. Branco under the contract were performed by Zurich in Switzerland. No obligations owed to or by Mr. Branco were performed in Saskatchewan. All things considered, Mr. Branco's claim is most closely and substantially connected with Switzerland, not Saskatchewan." - See paragraphs 163 and 164.

Conflict of Laws - Topic 7245

Contracts - Choice of law - Insurance contracts - The defendant insurer (Zurich) argued that punitive damages could not be awarded against it in this case because Swiss law, which governed the plaintiff's claim, prohibited such damages - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal considered whether a public policy exception should be invoked to displace that prohibition, and concluded that punitive damages were available against Zurich - "[I]n the present context - an insured versus an insurer - a law prohibiting punitive damages is so deeply inconsistent with Saskatchewan legal policy interests that it can and should be disregarded on public policy grounds. This is not to suggest that every foreign law which prohibits or limits punitive damages must be displaced on this basis. Different circumstances might generate different results." - See paragraphs 170 to 179.

Damage Awards - Topic 205

Injury and death - Psychological injuries - Mental distress (incl. nervous shock) - [See both Damage Awards - Topic 2412 ].

Damage Awards - Topic 2018.1

Exemplary or punitive damages - Breach of contract - The trial judge ordered the defendant insurer AIG to pay the plaintiff (Branco), an injured welder, $1.5 million in punitive damages - AIG appealed - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal reduced the award to $175,000 - "[T]he range of AIG's discreditable conduct is narrower than what was found by the judge. That said, this conduct self-evidently involved breaches of AIG's duty of good faith. It suspended and failed to pay benefits without proper reason and it attempted to lever Mr. Branco into accepting an unfairly low settlement of his global claim. This is the sort of conduct which properly attracts an award of punitive damages. ... [E]ven on the facts as found by the trial judge, the award was unwarrantedly high and must be reduced. ... This amount [$175,000] recognizes that AIG acted improperly in suspending Mr. Branco's benefits knowing that he was incapable of working at his original job, that it attempted to push him into accept an unfairly low settlement of his claim, and that it had acted in a broadly similar manner in another Saskatchewan claim. AIG knew or ought to have known that its actions were a significant breach of its duty of good faith. As a result, its conduct warrants a punitive damages award of some significance." - See paragraphs 92 to 133.

Damage Awards - Topic 2018.1

Exemplary or punitive damages - Breach of contract - The trial judge concluded that the defendant insurer Zurich had failed to deal with the plaintiff (Branco)'s claim in good faith, and assessed punitive damages in the amount of $3 million - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal reduced the award to $500,000 - "Zurich's administration of 'own occupation' benefits was a dramatic transgression of the bounds of good faith . ... (a) Zurich approved Mr. Branco's claim for 'own occupation' benefits in March of 2002. (b) Zurich did not pay out Mr. Branco's claim and did not tell him that his claim had been approved. Rather, it made an unconscionable effort to settle his claim for $62,688 in exchange for a release from all future liability of any kind under the policy.(c) The amount of the settlement offer made to Mr. Branco was calculated by deducting Zurich's legal costs from the amount of benefits owing to Mr. Branco. Zurich had a practice of deducting legal fees in this way, notwithstanding that there were no provisions in its policies of insurance to permit such deductions. (d) Zurich's legal department withheld medical reports from its own claims department for years. (e) After having accepted Mr. Branco's claim, Zurich filed a statement of defence denying that he was disabled and disputing that he even had a claim against it. (f) Zurich did not advise Mr. Branco that his claim for 'own occupation' benefits had been approved until 2007, and only then during answers given at an examination for discovery. (g) Zurich did not pay Mr. Branco's 'own occupation' benefits until 2009, when it finally acknowledged its liability to him." - Notwithstanding the nature of Zurich's transgressions, "the award was so dramatically high as to be irrational in the sense described in Whiten and must be set aside. Among other things, it is very much out of line with the range of damages revealed by the precedents" - See paragraphs 181 to 206.

Damage Awards - Topic 2021.2

Exemplary or punitive damages - Insurers - [See both Damage Awards - Topic 2018.1 ].

Damage Awards - Topic 2412

Aggravated damages - Insurers - The plaintiff insured had suffered a significant amount of mental distress as a result of the combined actions of the defendant insurers Zurich and AIG - An issue in relation to AIG's appeal concerned the trial judge's award of aggravated damages against it in the amount of $150,000 - The insurance policy was a "peace of mind" contract - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal reduced the award to $15,000 - "[T]he size of the damage award made by the trial judge is simply too extravagant to be sustained. ... [T]he judge quantified Mr. Branco's total mental distress at $450,000 and attributed $150,000 of that amount to AIG. This global figure far exceeds the much more modest awards which have been made to other insureds who have suffered extended periods of financial insecurity with similar-type consequences to those experienced by [the plaintiff]" - See paragraphs 134 to 142.

Damage Awards - Topic 2412

Aggravated damages - Insurers - The trial judge quantified the plaintiff insured's total mental distress at $450,000 as a result of the combined actions of the defendant insurers Zurich and AIG, and attributed $300,000 of that amount to Zurich - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal agreed with Zurich's argument that the size of the award "simply cannot be squared with the case law in this area and hence is so extreme that it must be set aside" - The plaintiff's loss of his income, independence, and family life caused him significant anxiety - "While some of this mental distress may have been caused by the injury itself, I am satisfied that it was significantly exacerbated by Zurich's breach of its contract ... Damages for mental distress must therefore be awarded, though in a lesser amount than what was ordered by the trial judge. ... I would set the total amount of such damages at $45,000. Respecting the assignment of responsibility for mental distress damages used by the trial judge, I would set aside the award of $300,000 against Zurich and substitute an award of $30,000." - See paragraphs 207 to 213.

Damages - Topic 1305.1

Exemplary or punitive damages - Insurance claim denial - [See both Damage Awards - Topic 2018.1 ].

Insurance - Topic 730

Insurers - Duties - Duty of good faith - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal held that the trial judge's assessment of the appellant insurer (AIG)'s liability under its policy was "fundamentally flawed" because he did not consider the specific terms of the policy when coming to his conclusions, and failed to relate the terms of the policy to the facts - The policy provided that AIG was to pay "promptly when due all compensation and other benefits required of the insured by the worker's compensation law" - On a plain reading of the Workers' Compensation Act, the insured respondent had a duty to cooperate with rehabilitation efforts under s. 51.1(b) and AIG had the authority, under s. 104(4)(b)(ii), to suspend his benefits if he did not - "In exercising those powers, AIG no doubt had an obligation to act in good faith. However, there can surely be no requirement to the effect that, if AIG did not use its discretionary authority in precisely the same way as the Workers' Compensation Board would have on a particular point, it must be found to have been operating in violation of the policy." - In the end result, the Court concluded that AIG did not fail to pay the wage loss benefits due under the policy - See paragraphs 75 to 82.

Insurance - Topic 730

Insurers - Duties - Duty of good faith - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal considered the general nature of the duty of good faith owed by insurance companies to their insured - Of particular relevance to this appeal were the duties of insurance companies to (a) assess claims in a balanced and fair manner; (b) advise the insured of the decision regarding the claim and of the reasons for the decision; (c) pay approved claims in a timely manner; (d) refrain from requiring an insured to sign away future rights to obtain admitted settlements; and (e) refrain from denying a claim or delaying payment in order to gain leverage or take advantage of an insured's economic vulnerability - See paragraph 97.

Insurance - Topic 730

Insurers - Duties - Duty of good faith - [See both Damage Awards - Topic 2412 ].

Practice - Topic 7110.1

Costs - Party and party costs - Special orders - Increase in scale of costs - Conduct of opposite party - [See Practice - Topic 7118.1 ].

Practice - Topic 7118.1

Costs - Party and party costs - Special orders - Multiplier - The plaintiff had been awarded total punitive damages of $4.5 million against the two major defendants, insurers Zurich and AIG - The trial judge rejected the idea that the defendant Kumtor should pay punitive damages, finding that Kumtor's actions had been "fair and reasonable in the circumstances" - On appeal, Kumtor questioned the trial judge's award of costs at the rate of five times column 4 of the Queen's Bench tariff - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal set aside the award and ordered costs against Kumtor on column 4 of the Queen's Bench tariff without any multiplier - In a complex lawsuit stretching over some 12 years, Kumtor was involved in only five pre-trial motions - The trial judge failed to act judicially in awarding costs as he did - See paragraphs 217 to 220.

Cases Noticed:

Fidler v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada, [2006] 2 S.C.R. 3; 350 N.R. 40; 227 B.C.A.C. 39; 374 W.A.C. 39; 2006 SCC 30, refd to. [paras. 63, 139].

H.L. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [2005] 1 S.C.R. 401; 333 N.R. 1; 262 Sask.R. 1; 347 W.A.C. 1; 2005 SCC 25, refd to. [para. 68].

Housen v. Nikolaisen et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235; 286 N.R. 1; 219 Sask.R. 1; 272 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 33, refd to. [para. 69].

Whiten v. Pilot Insurance Co. et al., [2002] 1 S.C.R. 595; 283 N.R. 1; 156 O.A.C. 201; 2002 SCC 18, appld. [paras. 70, 94, 123, 197 et seq.].

Woelk v. Halvorson, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 430; 33 N.R. 232; 24 A.R. 620, refd to. [para. 71].

Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto and Manning, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1130; 184 N.R. 1; 84 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 93].

Clarfield v. Crown Life Insurance Co., [2000] O.T.C. 757; 50 O.R.(3d) 696 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [paras. 97, 139].

702535 Ontario Inc. et al. v. Non-Marine Underwriters, Lloyd's, London et al. (2000), 130 O.A.C. 373; 184 D.L.R.(4th) 687 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 97].

Sarchuk v. Alto Construction Ltd. et al., [2004] 1 W.W.R. 228; 234 Sask.R. 133; 2003 SKQB 237, consd. [paras. 99, 124, 129].

Fernandes v. Penncorp Life Insurance Co., [2013] O.T.C. Uned. 1637; 2013 ONSC 1637, consd. [paras. 124, 139].

Ackermann v. Kings Mutual Insurance Co. (2010), 292 N.S.R.(2d) 120; 925 A.P.R. 120; 2010 NSCA 39, consd. [para. 124].

Khazzaka v. Commercial Union Assurance Co. of Canada (2002), 162 O.A.C. 293; 66 O.R.(3d) 390 (C.A.), consd. [para. 124].

Plester v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co. (2006), 213 O.A.C. 241; 269 D.L.R.(4th) 624 (C.A.), consd. [para. 124].

Pereira v. Hamilton Township Farmers' Mutual Fire Insurance Co. - see 1018202 Ontario Ltd. v. Hamilton Township Farmers' Mutual Fire Insurance Co.

1018202 Ontario Ltd. v. Hamilton Township Farmers' Mutual Fire Insurance Co. (2006), 209 O.A.C. 127; 267 D.L.R.(4th) 690 (C.A.), consd. [para. 124].

Lumsden v. Manitoba (2009), 236 Man.R.(2d) 130; 448 W.A.C. 130; 2009 MBCA 18, consd. [para. 139].

Asselstine v. Manufacturers Life Insurance Co. et al., [2003] B.C.T.C. 1119; 17 B.C.L.R.(4th) 107; 2003 BCSC 1119, affd. (2005), 213 B.C.A.C. 102; 352 W.A.C. 102; 2005 BCCA 292, consd. [para. 139].

Saunders v. RBC Life Insurance Co. (2007), 267 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 260; 811 A.P.R. 260; 2007 NLTD 104, consd. [para. 139].

Vita Food Products Inc. v. Unus Shipping Co. Ltd., [1939] 2 D.L.R. 1 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 150].

Amin Rasheed Shipping Corp. v. Kuwait Ins. Co., [1984] A.C. 50, refd to. [para. 150].

Stats v. Mutual of Omaha Insurance Co. (1976), 73 D.L.R.(3d) 324 (Ont. C.A.), dist. [para. 152].

Oldfield v. Transamerica Life Insurance Co. of Canada et al., [2002] 1 S.C.R. 742; 284 N.R. 104; 156 O.A.C. 310; 2002 SCC 22, dist. [para. 152].

Boseman v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Co. (1936), 301 U.S. 196, consd. [para. 154].

Morguard Investments Ltd. et al. v. De Savoye, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1077; 122 N.R. 81, refd to. [para. 160].

Imperial Life Assurance Co. of Canada v. Colmenares, [1967] S.C.R. 443, refd to. [para. 160].

Pick v. Manufacturers Life Insurance Co., [1958] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 93, refd to. [para. 163].

Kuwait Airways Corp. v. Iraqi Airways Co. et al., [2002] 2 A.C. 883; 291 N.R. 1; [2002] UKHL 19, refd to. [para. 171].

Tolofson v. Jensen and Tolofson, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 1022; 175 N.R. 161; 77 O.A.C. 81; 51 B.C.A.C. 241; 84 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 171].

Wong v. Lee et al. (2002), 157 O.A.C. 340; 211 D.L.R.(4th) 69 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 171].

Block Brothers Realty Ltd. v. Mollard (1981), 122 D.L.R.(3d) 323 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 171].

Tri-Union Seafoods, LLC v. Starr Surplus Lines Insurance Co., 2015 US Dist. LEXIS 23441 (S.D. Cal.), refd to. [para. 177].

St. Paul Surplus Lines Insurance Co. v. International Playtex Inc. (1989), 245 Kan. 258 (S.C. Kan.), refd to. [para. 177].

Beals v. Saldanha et al., [2003] 3 S.C.R. 416; 314 N.R. 209; 182 O.A.C. 201; 2003 SCC 72, refd to. [para. 178].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Law Reform Commission (Ont.), Report on Exemplary Damages (1991), p. 33 [para. 174].

Counsel:

Robert Leurer, Q.C., Steven Stieber, Jodi Wildeman and Emily Stock, for Zurich Life Insurance;

Alan D'Silva, Glenn Zacher and Sinziana Hennig, for American Home Assurance;

Catherine Sloan and Paul Clemens, for Kumtor Operating Company;

Alexander Kotkas, Gulu Punia and Arif Chowdhury, for Luciano Branco.

This appeal and cross-appeal were heard on January 20-21, 2015, before Richards, C.J.S., Lane and Herauf, JJ.A., of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal. In reasons written by Richards, C.J.S., the Court delivered the following judgment, dated June 19 2015.

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 practice notes
  • Industrial Alliance Insurance and Financial Services Inc. v. Brine, 2015 NSCA 104
    • Canada
    • Nova Scotia Court of Appeal of Nova Scotia (Canada)
    • November 17, 2015
    ... (2014), 340 N.S.R.(2d) 239 ; 1077 A.P.R. 239 ; 2014 NSSC 31 , refd to. [para. 143]. Branco v. American Home Assurance Co. et al. (2015), 460 Sask.R. 176; 639 W.A.C. 176 ; 2015 SKCA 71 , varying (2013), 416 Sask.R. 77 ; 2013 SKQB 98 , refd to. [para. 149]. Keays v. Honda Canada Inc., ......
  • Digest: Coward v Kramer Ltd., 2018 SKCA 63
    • Canada
    • Saskatchewan Law Society Case Digests
    • August 18, 2019
    ...188 ACWS (3d) 323 Binnington v J.I. Case Company and Saskatoon Farm Equipment Ltd., [1965] SJ No. 73 Branco v American Home Assurance Co., 2015 SKCA 71, [2015] 10 WWR 246, 460 Sask R 76 Canada Trustco Mortgage Co. v R, 2005 SCC 54, [2005] 2 SCR 601 Chursenoff v Bailey Brothers, 1924 CanLII ......
  • Digest: Leach v Saskatchewan Government Insurance, 2018 SKQB 350
    • Canada
    • Saskatchewan Law Society Case Digests
    • December 20, 2018
    ...3-81 Cases Considered: Allary v Saskatchewan Government Insurance, 2006 SKCA 89, 285 Sask R 202 Branco v Zurich Life Insurance Co. Ltd., 2015 SKCA 71, [2015] 10 WWR 246, 460 Sask R 76 Comrie v Comrie, 2001 SKCA 33, 197 DLR (4th) 223, [2001] 7 WWR 294, 203 Sask R 164, 17 RFL (5th) 271 Gagne ......
  • Britton v. Simon Estate, 2016 SKQB 30
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
    • January 25, 2016
    ...harm done, and consideration of the penalty necessary to punish the defendant in light of that. In Branco v American Home Assurance Co. , 2015 SKCA 71, 460 Sask R 76 [ Branco ], Chief Justice Richards outlined the approach to be followed in determining quantum of punitive damages: [95] As t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
11 cases
  • Industrial Alliance Insurance and Financial Services Inc. v. Brine, 2015 NSCA 104
    • Canada
    • Nova Scotia Court of Appeal of Nova Scotia (Canada)
    • November 17, 2015
    ... (2014), 340 N.S.R.(2d) 239 ; 1077 A.P.R. 239 ; 2014 NSSC 31 , refd to. [para. 143]. Branco v. American Home Assurance Co. et al. (2015), 460 Sask.R. 176; 639 W.A.C. 176 ; 2015 SKCA 71 , varying (2013), 416 Sask.R. 77 ; 2013 SKQB 98 , refd to. [para. 149]. Keays v. Honda Canada Inc., ......
  • Britton v. Simon Estate, 2016 SKQB 30
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
    • January 25, 2016
    ...harm done, and consideration of the penalty necessary to punish the defendant in light of that. In Branco v American Home Assurance Co. , 2015 SKCA 71, 460 Sask R 76 [ Branco ], Chief Justice Richards outlined the approach to be followed in determining quantum of punitive damages: [95] As t......
  • SPOGER HOLDINGS LTD. v. PLAINS MIDSTREAM CANADA ULC, 2018 SKQB 233
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
    • August 30, 2018
    ...court. [269] A recent discussion of the basis upon which a court may award exemplary damages is found in Branco v Zurich Life Assurance, 2015 SKCA 71, 460 Sask R 176. Richards C.J.S. framed the discussion as [93] There is no dispute as to the nature of the legal framework which governs the ......
  • Greig v. Desjardins Financial Security Life Assurance Company, 2019 BCSC 1758
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
    • October 15, 2019
    ...the plaintiff into accepting an unreasonably low cash settlement. In the appeal, cited as Zurich Life Insurance Company Limited v. Branco, 2015 SKCA 71, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal reduced the punitive damages award imposed against AIG to $175,000 based on a number of erroneous finding......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Digest: Coward v Kramer Ltd., 2018 SKCA 63
    • Canada
    • Saskatchewan Law Society Case Digests
    • August 18, 2019
    ...188 ACWS (3d) 323 Binnington v J.I. Case Company and Saskatoon Farm Equipment Ltd., [1965] SJ No. 73 Branco v American Home Assurance Co., 2015 SKCA 71, [2015] 10 WWR 246, 460 Sask R 76 Canada Trustco Mortgage Co. v R, 2005 SCC 54, [2005] 2 SCR 601 Chursenoff v Bailey Brothers, 1924 CanLII ......
  • Digest: Leach v Saskatchewan Government Insurance, 2018 SKQB 350
    • Canada
    • Saskatchewan Law Society Case Digests
    • December 20, 2018
    ...3-81 Cases Considered: Allary v Saskatchewan Government Insurance, 2006 SKCA 89, 285 Sask R 202 Branco v Zurich Life Insurance Co. Ltd., 2015 SKCA 71, [2015] 10 WWR 246, 460 Sask R 76 Comrie v Comrie, 2001 SKCA 33, 197 DLR (4th) 223, [2001] 7 WWR 294, 203 Sask R 164, 17 RFL (5th) 271 Gagne ......
  • Exclusion of Foreign Law
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Conflict of Laws. Second Edition
    • June 21, 2016
    ...policy exemption is narrow”: ibid at para 60. 10 Ibid at para 87. Another interesting example is Branco v American Home Assur ance Co, 2015 SKCA 71 at paras 170-79, which held that a foreign rule prohibit ing punitive damages in a claim by an insured against an insurer “is so CONFLICT OF LA......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT