Hudson v. ICBC, (1991) 8 B.C.A.C. 13 (CA)

Judge:McEachern, C.J.B.C., Macdonald and Locke, JJ.A.
Court:Court of Appeal of British Columbia
Case Date:April 19, 1991
Jurisdiction:British Columbia
Citations:(1991), 8 B.C.A.C. 13 (CA)
 
FREE EXCERPT

Hudson v. ICBC (1991), 8 B.C.A.C. 13 (CA);

    17 W.A.C. 13

MLB headnote and full text

Stanley Norman Hudson (plaintiff/respondent) v. Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (defendant/appellant)

(No. CA011064)

Indexed As: Hudson v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia

British Columbia Court of Appeal

McEachern, C.J.B.C., Macdonald and Locke, JJ.A.

July 2, 1991.

Summary:

Hudson's car was vandalized while it was parked. Hudson claimed under a policy that provided comprehensive coverage for pleasure use only. The insurer rejected the claim because Hudson was using the car for business. Hudson sued.

The trial court allowed Hudson's claim. The insurer appealed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and dismissed Hudson's claim.

Insurance - Topic 1032

The insurance contract - Terms - Warranty, defined - The British Columbia Court of Appeal referred to a definition of a warranty for purposes of a motor vehicle insurance contract (see paragraph 6).

Insurance - Topic 1033

The insurance contract - Terms - Warranty, what constitutes - Hudson bought comprehensive car coverage for pleasure use only - The car was used for business in violation of the policy - The British Columbia Court of Appeal held that the statement by Hudson that the car would be used for pleasure only, was not a warranty, and that the policy did not lapse - But the court stated that the policy did not provide coverage while the car was used for a forbidden use (see paragraph 8).

Insurance - Topic 4061

Automobile insurance - Property damage policy, risk - "Operate" defined - Hudson's car was vandalized while it was parked - Hudson was using the car for business purposes contrary to the stated coverage of "pleasure" only - Was Hudson "operating" the car while it was parked? - The British Columbia Court of Appeal answered "yes" - The court denied coverage and held that the word "operate" was used in the policy in the sense of "use" (see paragraph 10).

Words and Phrases

Operate - The British Columbia Court of Appeal referred to the meaning of the word "operate" for purposes of a motor vehicle insurance policy (see paragraphs 9 and 10).

Cases Noticed:

Farr v. Motor Traders Mutual, [1920] 3 K.B. 669, refd to. [para. 8].

McKay v. I.C.B.C. (1984), 56 B.C.L.R. 391, refd to. [para. 8].

Authors and Works Noticed:

MacGillivray & Parkington on Insurance Law (6th Ed.), para. 636 [para. 6].

Counsel:

M. Skorah, for the appellant;

   D. Halfyard and D.J. O'Byrne, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard by McEachern, C.J.B.C., Macdonald and Locke, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal at Vancouver, British Columbia on April 19, 1991. The decision of the court was delivered by Locke, J.A., on July 2, 1991.

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP