Jubenville v. Jubenville et al., 2013 ONCA 302

• Judge: Rosenberg, Gillese and Rouleau, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: March 20, 2013
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: 2013 ONCA 302;(2013), 307 O.A.C. 225 (CA)

Jubenville v. Jubenville (2013), 307 O.A.C. 225 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2013] O.A.C. TBEd. MY.013

Ashley Jubenville and Kelly Jubenville (plaintiffs/respondents) v. Kevin Jubenville, Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company, Superintendent of Financial Services and Economical Mutual Insurance Company/Economical Compagnie Mutuelle d'Assurance (defendants/appellants)

(C56259; 2013 ONCA 302)

Indexed As: Jubenville v. Jubenville et al.

Ontario Court of Appeal

Rosenberg, Gillese and Rouleau, JJ.A.

May 8, 2013.

Summary:

The plaintiff (Ashley) was five years old when she was injured in a single vehicle motor vehicle accident while a passenger in her father's vehicle which was uninsured. Ashley's mother had insurance on two other vehicles. An issue arose as to whether the father's vehicle fell within the definition of "uninsured automobile" in the mother's standard automobile insurance policy such as to entitle Ashley to claim pursuant to the uninsured provisions in the mother's policy.

The Ontario Superior Court, in a decision reported [2012] O.T.C. Uned. 5678, held that the father's vehicle qualified as an uninsured automobile such that Ashley could make a claim. The father, the mother's insurer and the Superintendent of Financial Services appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Insurance - Topic 5185.1

Automobile insurance - Compulsory government schemes - Uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage - Insured defined - The plaintiff (Ashley) was five years old when she was injured in a single vehicle accident while a passenger in her father's vehicle which was uninsured - Ashley's mother had insurance on two other vehicles - At issue was whether the father's vehicle fell within the definition of "uninsured automobile" in the mother's standard automobile insurance policy such as to entitle Ashley to claim pursuant to the uninsured provisions in the mother's policy - The mother's policy had uninsured automobile coverage, but excluded an automobile owned by or registered in the name of the insured or his or her spouse - The Ontario Court of Appeal affirmed that the word "insured" in the exclusion meant the person making the claim, in this case Ashley (a dependent relative of the mother), and thus the automobile qualified as an uninsured automobile within the meaning of the policy and s. 265 of the Insurance Act, and Ashley was entitled to recover under the policy.

Words and Phrases

Insured - The Ontario Court of Appeal discussed the meaning of the word "insured" in the definition of "uninsured automobile" in an insurance policy - See paragraphs 7 to 26.

Cases Noticed:

Taggart et al. v. Simmons et al. (2001), 141 O.A.C. 315; 52 O.R.(3d) 704 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

McArdle v. Bugler et al. (2007), 229 O.A.C. 26; 2007 ONCA 659, refd to. [para. 17].

Wing et al. v. 1198281 Ontario Ltd. et al., [2006] O.T.C. 1394; 46 C.C.L.I.(4th) 154, refd to. [para. 23].

Wigle et al. v. Allstate Insurance Co. of Canada (1984), 6 O.A.C. 161; 49 O.R.(2d) 101 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

July v. Neal and Home Insurance Co. (1986), 17 O.A.C. 390; 57 O.R.(2d) 129 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

Statutes Noticed:

Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I-8, sect. 265 [para. 6].

Counsel:

Lauren Bloom and Jennifer McGlashan, for the appellant, Economical Mutual Insurance Company/Economical Compagnie Mutuelle d'Assurance;

Michael Stocks, for the appellant, Superintendent of Financial Services;

Laura Pearce, for the respondents.

This appeal was heard on March 20, 2013, before Rosenberg, Gillese and Rouleau, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. The following decision was released for the court, by Rouleau, J.A., on May 8, 2013.