Johnson v. Eaton/Bay Life Assurance Co., (1984) 3 O.A.C. 238 (CA)

• Judge: Blair, Thorson and Goodman, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: March 08, 1984
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1984), 3 O.A.C. 238 (CA);1984 CanLII 692 (BC SC);44 OR (2d) 649;6 DLR (4th) 96;51 BCLR 228;5 CCLI 146;5 CCLT 146;[1984] BCJ No 2813 (QL);[1984] ILR 1;29 MVR 98;3 OAC 238

Johnson v. Eaton/Bay Life (1984), 3 O.A.C. 238 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Johnson v. Eaton/Bay Life Assurance Company

Indexed As: Johnson v. Eaton/Bay Life Assurance Co.

Ontario Court of Appeal

Blair, Thorson and Goodman, JJ.A.

March 14, 1984.

Summary:

The beneficiary under a life insurance policy brought an action for payment of the proceeds after the death of the insured. The trial judge held that the policy was in full force and effect on the date of the insured's death and allowed the beneficiary's action. See [1983] I.L.R. 6465. The insurer appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and held that the policy was void.

Insurance - Topic 1861

Insurance contracts - Interpretation - Contra proferentem rule - Ambiguity construed against insurer - An insured applied to reinstate her life insurance policy after it had lapsed - She was required to provide medical information about herself bearing on her insurability - The insured answered one question in a bona fide but mistaken belief as to the nature of the information sought - The Ontario Court of Appeal refused to apply the contra proferentem rule because the question was unambiguous - The court held that the insured, by not answering the question as she should have, failed to disclose facts material to the insurance - See paragraphs 4 to 6.

Insurance - Topic 2490

Applicant's duty of disclosure - Default in duty to disclose - Misrepresentation - What constitutes - An insured applied to reinstate her life insurance policy after it had lapsed - She was required to provide medical information about herself bearing on her insurability - The insured answered one question in a bona fide but mistaken belief as to the nature of the information sought - The Ontario Court of Appeal, because the question was unambiguous, held that the insured, by not answering the question as she should have, failed to disclose facts material to the insurance - See paragraphs 4 to 6.

Insurance - Topic 3307

Payment of insurance proceeds - Actions - Defences - Misrepresentation in application - An insurer denied liability under a life insurance policy - In applying for coverage, the insured was required to provide medical information about herself - She answered one question in a bona fide but mistaken belief as to the question's meaning - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the question was unambiguous - The court accepted the insurer's defence that the insured, by not answering the question as she should have, failed to disclose facts material to the insurance - See paragraphs 4 to 6.

Counsel:

Brian B. Morgan and Larry Lowenstein, for the appellant;

C.J. Freedlander, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard before Blair, Thorson and Goodman, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal on March 8, 1984. The decision of the Court of Appeal was delivered by Thorson, J.A., and released on March 14, 1984.