Co-operative Fire & Casualty Co. v. Ritchie and Ritchie, (1983) 50 N.R. 106 (SCC)

• Judge: Ritchie, Dickson, Estey, McIntyre and Wilson, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: September 27, 1983
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1983), 50 N.R. 106 (SCC);50 NR 106;1983 CanLII 155 (SCC);[1983] SCJ No 61 (QL);150 DLR (3d) 1;61 NSR (2d) 437;[1983] 2 SCR 36;2 CCLI 215

Co-op Fire v. Ritchie (1983), 50 N.R. 106 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

Co-operative Fire & Casualty Company v. Ritchie and Ritchie

Indexed As: Co-operative Fire & Casualty Co. v. Ritchie and Ritchie

Supreme Court of Canada

Ritchie, Dickson, Estey, McIntyre and Wilson, JJ.

September 27, 1983.

Summary:

A husband owned a car, which he insured in his own name with his wife as an un-named insured. The wife was the principal operator of the car and was at fault in an accident she had while intoxicated. A statutory condition prohibited use of the car by anyone under the influence of liquor. The insurer paid the innocent third parties without their obtaining judgment against the husband or wife and claimed reimbursement from them. The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Trial Division, in a judgment reported 45 N.S.R.(2d) 471; 86 A.P.R. 471, allowed the action against both the husband and wife. They appealed. The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal in a judgment reported 50 N.S.R.(2d) 68; 98 A.P.R. 68, allowed the appeal and dismissed the insurer's action. The insurer appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal in part and allowed the action against the wife. The court held that the husband was not liable, because he did not permit an intoxicated person to drive, where he could not reasonably foresee that his wife would drive while intoxicated. The court found the wife liable as an insured for breach of the statutory condition against driving while intoxicated.

Insurance - Topic 4623

Automobile insurance - Recovery by insurer from insured for payments to third parties - Conditions precedent - The Supreme Court of Canada held that under s. 98 of the Insurance Act, S.N.S. 1966, c. 79, an insurer could settle and pay a claim by third parties and then recover from the insured without the third parties obtaining judgment - See paragraphs 3 to 6.

Insurance - Topic 4626

Automobile insurance - Recovery by insurer from insured for payments to third parties - Where driver not named insured - A husband's car was insured in his own name with his wife as un-named insured - The wife was the principal operator and had an accident in which she was at fault while impaired - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the husband did not permit the car to be driven by an intoxicated person and was not liable to reimburse the insurer for payments to the third parties, because he could not reasonably foresee and did not know that his wife would drive impaired - See paragraphs 13 to 20.

Insurance - Topic 4626

Automobile insurance - Recovery by insurer from insured for payments to third parties - Where driver not named insured - A husband owned a car which he insured in his own name with his wife as un-named insured - The wife was the principal operator and had an accident in which she was at fault while impaired - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the wife was liable to reimburse the insurer for payments to the third parties, because she was an insured under the policy and was liable for the breach of the statutory condition against driving while intoxicated - See paragraphs 3 to 12, 20.

Cases Noticed:

Bitz v. Northwestern Mutual Insurance Co. (1966), 58 D.L.R.(2d) 344, dist. [para. 17].

Peters v. Saskatchewan Government Insurance Office, 2 D.L.R.(2d) 589, dist. [para. 17].

McLeod (or Houston) v. Buchanan, [1940] 2 All E.R. 179 (H.L.), consd. [para. 16].

Statutes Noticed:

Insurance Act, S.N.S. 1966, c. 79, sect. 82(1) [para. 7]; sect. 98(1) [para. 4]; sect. 98(4) [para. 5]; sect. 98(13) [para. 6]; Pt. 4, stat. con. 2 [para. 9].

Counsel:

C.A. Beckett, for the appellant;

Norman Hill, for the respondents.

This case was heard on February 2, 1983, at Ottawa, Ontario, before Ritchie, Dickson, Estey, McIntyre and Wilson, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On September 27, 1983, Ritchie, J., delivered the following judgment for the Supreme Court of Canada: