Brochu et al. v. Vachon et al., (2003) 342 A.R. 181 (QB)

• Judge: Moreau, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: September 22, 2003
• Citations: (2003), 342 A.R. 181 (QB);2003 ABQB 820

Brochu v. Vachon (2003), 342 A.R. 181 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2003] A.R. TBEd. OC.134

Lacey Brochu, by her Next Friend and Mother, Marie Brochu and Marie Brochu in her personal capacity and Her Majesty The Queen in Right of The Province of Alberta (plaintiffs) v. Barbara Elda Vachon, Ernest Adelard Robert, Darcy Ernest Alfred Robert, Jane Doe, John Doe and Royal Sun Alliance Insurance Company of Canada (defendants) and Lombard Canada, Marie Brochu and Rob Brochu (third party)

(9912-00795; 2003 ABQB 820)

Indexed As: Brochu et al. v. Vachon et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Wetaskiwin

Moreau, J.

September 30, 2003.

Summary:

ATV owners met with their insurance agent to have their uninsured ATV added to their motor vehicle liability policy. The policy was issued at 4:20 p.m. There was no specific discussion as to when coverage commenced. Unknown to the owners, their 12 year old son had an accident with the ATV at 1:00 p.m. When the Certificate of Automobile Insurance was subsequently issued, it indicated that coverage commenced at 12:01 a.m. that day, which was before the accident occurred. The owners had not requested that coverage be backdated. At issue was whether coverage commenced at 12:01 a.m. (third party's claim covered) or at 4:20 p.m. (no coverage).

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench ruled that the insurer's obligations were defined by the policy it issued (i.e., coverage commenced at 12:01). The fact that the accident happened before the policy was issued did not exempt the insurer from providing the coverage clearly set out in the Certificate.

Insurance - Topic 1128

The insurance contract - The policy period - Time when policy takes effect - ATV owners added their uninsured ATV to their motor vehicle liability policy at 4:20 p.m. - There was no specific discussion between the owners and agent as to when coverage commenced - Unknown to the owners, their son had an accident with the ATV at 1:00 p.m. - When the certificate of insurance was issued, it indicated that coverage commenced at 12:01 a.m. that day, before the accident occurred - The owners had not requested backdated coverage - At issue was whether coverage commenced at 12:01 a.m. (as stated on certificate) or at 4:20 p.m. (when coverage added) - The insurer submitted that it could not be contractually bound to provide coverage for an event occurring before the formation and issuance of the policy unless the parties expressly agreed to do so - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench ruled that the insurer's obligations were defined by the unambiguous terms of the policy it issued (i.e., coverage commenced at 12:01) - The fact that the accident happened before the policy was issued did not exempt the insurer from providing the coverage clearly set out in the Certificate - There was no agreement that coverage commenced at 4:20 - Had the insurer intended that coverage commenced at 4:20, it could have stipulated that in the certificate - Absent ambiguity, the "reasonable expectations" of when coverage would commence was irrelevant - There was no clerical error or "mistake" that needed rectified.

Cases Noticed:

Virani v. Edwards (1999), 244 A.R. 55; 209 W.A.C. 55 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 4].

Marshall v. Law Union and Rock Insurance Co. (1958), 18 D.L.R.(2d) 442 (N.B.C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

Bordeniuk v. Co-operative Fire & Casualty Co. (1979), 16 A.R. 166; 101 D.L.R.(3d) 274 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

Ashton et al. v. Tu et al. (1998), 110 O.A.C. 283; 160 D.L.R.(4th) 446 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

Brissette v. Westbury Life Insurance Co. (1992), 142 N.R. 104; 58 O.A.C. 10; 96 D.L.R.(4th) 609 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 10].

Consolidated-Bathurst Export Ltd. v. Mutual Boiler and Machinery Insurance Co. (1980), 32 N.R. 488; 112 D.L.R.(3d) 49 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 11].

Reid Crowther & Partners Ltd. v. Simcoe & Erie General Insurance Co., [1993] 1 S.C.R. 252; 147 N.R. 44; 83 Man.R.(2d) 81; 36 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 21].

Davidson et al. v. Eaton/Bay Trust Co. (1986), 71 A.R. 184 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 24].

Oriole Oil & Gas Ltd. v. American Eagle Petroleums Ltd. (1981), 27 A.R. 411, refd to. [para. 24].

Laurentian Casualty Co. of Canada v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., [1994] O.J. No. 7 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 32].

Chilton v. Co-Operators General Insurance Co. (1997), 97 O.A.C. 369; 32 O.R.(3d) 161 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 41].

Strickland et al. v. Costanzo (2002), 308 A.R. 246 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 46].

Davie v. Palliser Insurance Co. (2002), 220 Sask.R. 196 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 48].

Young's-Graves & Co. (Receivership) et al. v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co. (1991), 6 C.C.L.I.(2d) 245 (Ont. Gen. Div.), affd. (1995), 80 O.A.C. 365; 23 O.R.(3d) 478 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 50].

Caisse Populaire des Deux Rives v. Vallée du Richelieu (La), compagnie mutuelle d'assurance de dommages, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 995; 115 N.R. 1; 34 Q.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 53].

Public Trustee (Alta.) et al. v. Allstate Life Insurance Co. of Canada (1998), 238 A.R. 63 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 5].

Chan Estate v. Allstate Life Insurance Co. - see Public Trustee (Alta.) et al. v. Allstate Life Insurance Co. of Canada.

Authors and Works Noticed:

Brown, Craig, and Menezes, Julio, Insurance Law in Canada (2002 Looseleaf), pp. 1-1, 1-2 [para. 13].

Chesire and Fifoot, Law of Contract (8th Ed.), pp. 202, 203 [para. 46].

Fridman, G.H.L., The Law of Contract in Canada (1994), p. 822 [para. 51].

Counsel:

Bonnie W. Wald, for the plaintiffs;

David O. Diedew, for the solicitor for the Administrator of the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Act;

John Bassie, Q.C., for Barbara Elda Vachon and Ernest Adelard Robert;

Jeffrey R. Sermet, for the third party, Lombard Canada.

This application was heard on September 22, 2003, before Moreau, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Wetaskiwin, who delivered the following judgment on September 30, 2003.