Pickford & Black Ltd. v. Canadian General Insurance Co., (1974) 10 N.S.R.(2d) 501 (CA)

• Judge: MacKeigan, C.J.N.S., Coffin and Cooper, JJ.A.
• Court: Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (Canada)
• Case Date: November 22, 1973
• Jurisdiction: Nova Scotia
• Citations: (1974), 10 N.S.R.(2d) 501 (CA)

Pickford & Black v. Cdn. Gen. Ins. (1974), 10 N.S.R.(2d) 501 (CA);

       2 A.P.R. 501

MLB headnote and full text

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

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

Nova Scotia Supreme Court

Appeal Division

MacKeigan, C.J.N.S., Coffin and Cooper, JJ.A.

September 26, 1974.

Summary:

This case arose out of a claim by an insured under 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 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 Trial Division allowed the plaintiff's action against the insurer and rejected the defence of the insurer based on exclusionary clauses contained in the policy. The Trial Division held that the exclusionary clauses did not apply to the property damage coverage endorsement issued by the insurer. The Trial Division 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 led to the shifting of the cargo while the ship was at sea. The judgment of the Trial Division is set out below in part - see paragraphs 57 to 109.

On appeal to the Appeal Division of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court the appeal was allowed and the judgment of the Trial Division was set aside. The Appeal Division held that the territorial exclusion was part of the property damage coverage endorsement issued to the insured. The territorial exclusion excluded accidents which occurred outside of Canada. The Appeal Division held that the accident occurred outside Canada even though the cause of the accident originated inside Canada - see paragraphs 1 to 50.

Note that a notice of appeal of this case was filed in the Supreme Court of Canada on or about November 29, 1974 - see the 1974 Bulletin of Proceedings taken in the Supreme Court of Canada at p. 403.

Evidence - Topic 204

Inferences and legal proof - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Trial Division, stated that legal proof does not require certainty but only such a measure of probability as to entitle the judicial mind to reasonably infer the fact in issue - See paragraph 57.

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 - When the ship was outside Canada on the North Atlantic Ocean the cargo of the ship shifted resulting in damage to the equipment - The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal dismissed the claim by the insured stevedoring firm against an insurer because of a territorial exclusion in the policy - The Court of Appeal held that the "accident" occurred outside Canada even though the cause of the "accident" originated inside Canada.

Words and Phrases

Accident - The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal discussed the meaning of the word "accident" as found in a marine insurance policy.

Words and Phrases

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

Cases Noticed:

Global General Insurance Company v. Finlay and Laying, [1961] S.C.R. 539, folld. [para. 4].

Fenton v. J. Thorley & Co. Limited, [1903] A.C. 443 (H.L.), folld. [para. 25].

Trynor Construction Company Ltd. v. The Canadian Security Company (1970), 1 N.S.R.(2d) 599, refd to. [para. 26].

Tinline v. White Cross Insurance Association Limited, [1921] 3 K.B. 327, refd to. [para. 26].

Gray and Another v. Barr, [1971] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

Greenway v. Saskatchewan Government Insurance Office (1967), 59 W.W.R. 673, refd to. [para. 26].

The Canadian Indemnity Company v. Andrews & George Limited, [1953] 1 S.C.R. 19, refd to. [para. 27].

Hyer v. Inter-Insurance Exchange of Automobile Club of Southern California (1926), 246 Pacific Rep. 1055, not folld. [para. 30].

Straits Towing Limited et al. v. Walkem Machinery & Equipment Ltd. et al., [1973] 5 W.W.R. 212, refd. to [para. 35].

Straits Towing Limited et al. v. Walkem Machinery & Equipment Ltd. et al., [1973] 5 W.W.R. 212, dist. [para. 46].

Board of Education of Windsor v. Ford Motor Co., [1941] 3 D.L.R. 721, refd to. [para. 57].

Trynor Construction Company Ltd. v. The Canadian Surety Company (1970), 1 N.S.R.(2d) 599, folld. [para. 71].

Fife Coal Company v. Young, [1940] 2 All E.R. 85, dist. [para. 75].

The Canadian Indemnity Company v. Andrews & George Company Limited, [1953] 1 S.C.R. 19, dist. [para. 75].

Grey and Another v. Barr, [1971] 2 All E.R. 949, folld. [para. 75].

Marshall Wells of Canada Limited v. Winnipeg Supply and Fuel Company Limited et al. (1964), 49 W.W.R. 664, dist. [para. 86].

Straits Towing Limited et al. v. Washington Iron Works, Walkem Machinery & Equipment Ltd. and Yarrows Ltd. and Canadian Indemnity Company (1970), 74 W.W.R. 228, folld. [para. 90].

Crisp v. Delta Tile & Terrazzo Co., [1961] O.W.N 278, dist. [para. 92].

Bryant v. The Continental Insurance Company et al. (1970), 466 Pacific Reporter (2nd) 201, folld. [para. 101].

Counsel:

John H. Dickey Q.C., and John M. Davison, for the appellant;

Arthur S. Pattillo, Q.C., and Donald D. Anderson, Q.C., for the respondent.

This appeal was heard by the Appeal Division on November 22, 1973. Judgment was delivered by the Appeal Division on September 26, 1974.

The judgment of the Appeal Division was delivered by MacKeigan, C.J.N.S.