Pickford & Black Ltd. v. Canada General Insurance Co., (1976) 7 N.R. 585 (SCC)

• Judge: Laskin, C.J.C., Martland, Judson, Ritchie, Spence, Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz and de Grandpré, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: January 30, 1976
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1976), 7 N.R. 585 (SCC);[1976] SCJ No 24 (QL);[1977] 1 SCR 261;66 DLR (3d) 571;1976 CanLII 153 (SCC);7 NR 585;[1977] 1 SCR 413;[1976] ILR 81;14 NSR (2d) 181;1976 CanLII 158 (SCC);64 DLR (3d) 179

Pickford & Black v. Can. General (1976), 7 N.R. 585 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

Pickford & Black Ltd. v. Canada General Insurance Co.

Indexed As: Pickford & Black Ltd. v. Canada General Insurance Co.

Supreme Court of Canada

Laskin, C.J.C., Martland, Judson, Ritchie, Spence, Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz and de Grandpré, JJ.

January 30, 1976.

Summary:

This case arose out of a claim by an insured pursuant to a marine insurance policy issued by the defendant insurer. The plaintiff insured, a stevedoring firm, negligently loaded electrical equipment on a ship at Halifax, Nova Scotia. When the ship was outside of Canada on the North Atlantic Ocean the cargo of the ship shifted resulting in damage to the equipment. After legal action and judgment the plaintiff insured was required to pay to the owner of the electrical equipment $122,360.00 for damages for damage to the equipment. The insured then claimed $122,360. from its insurer. The Trial Division of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court allowed the plaintiff's action against the insurer and rejected the defence of the insurer based on exclusionary clauses contained in the policy. The policy did not cover accidents occurring outside of Canada. The Trial Division of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court stated that even if the exclusionary clauses were part of the property damage coverage, then the word "accident" must be interpreted to include the chain of causation which lead to the shifting of the cargo while the ship was at sea - see 10 N.S.R.(2d) 517.

On appeal to the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal the appeal was allowed and the judgment of the Trial Division was set aside. The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal held that the territorial exclusion was part of the property damage coverage endorsement to the policy. The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal held that the accident occurred outside of Canada even though the cause of the accident originated in Canada - see 10 N.S.R.(2d) 501.

On appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada the appeal was dismissed and the judgment of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal was affirmed. The Supreme Court of Canada held that the shifting of the cargo at sea was an accident within the meaning of the policy and that the negligent loading of the cargo at Halifax was the cause of the accident but was not the "accident".

Insurance - Topic 8584

Marine insurance - Risk - Exclusions - Territorial exclusion with respect to accidents - Whether an accident occurred outside of Canada - The insured, a stevedoring firm, negligently loaded electrical equipment on a ship at Halifax, Nova Scotia - When the ship was outside of Canada on the North Atlantic Ocean the cargo of the ship shifted resulting in damage to the equipment - The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the claim by the insured stevedoring firm against an insurer because of a territorial exclusion in the policy which excluded coverage for accidents occurring outside of Canada - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the "accident" occurred outside of Canada even though the cause of the "accident" originated inside of Canada.

Words and Phrases

Accident - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the meaning of the word "accident" as found in a marine insurance policy.

Words and Phrases

Risk at sea - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the meaning of the words "risk at sea" as found in a marine insurance policy.

Cases Noticed:

Canadian Indemnity Company and Walkem Machinery & Equipment Ltd., 3 N.R. 523; (1975), 53 D.L.R.(3d) 1, folld. [para. 15].

Marshall Wells of Canada Limited v. Winnipeg Supply and Fuel, R. Litz & Sons Company Limited v. Canadian General Insurance Co. (1964), 49 W.W.R. 644, folld. [para. 15].

Counsel:

K.E. Eaton, Q.C. and D.D. Anderson, Q.C., for the appellant;

J.H. Dickey, Q.C. and J.M. Davison, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard by the Supreme Court of Canada at Ottawa, Ontario on November 25 and 26, 1975. Judgment was delivered by the Supreme Court of Canada on January 30, 1976.

The judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered by RITCHIE, J.