Sansalone v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co. et al., (1998) 106 B.C.A.C. 268 (CA)

• Judge: Hollinrake, Finch and Proudfoot, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: Thursday April 09, 1998
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: (1998), 106 B.C.A.C. 268 (CA)

Sansalone v. Wawanesa Mutual (1998), 106 B.C.A.C. 268 (CA);

   172 W.A.C. 268

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1998] B.C.A.C. TBEd. JN.008

Nicodemo Sansalone (petitioner/respondent) v. The Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company (respondent/appellant)

(CA022745)

M.J. Oppenheim, in his quality as Attorney in Canada for the Non-Marine Underwriters, Members of Lloyd's of London (appellant) v. Vincent Scalera (respondent)

(CA023902)

Indexed As: Sansalone v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co. et al.

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Hollinrake, Finch and Proudfoot, JJ.A.

April 9, 1998.

Summary:

The same woman sued two insured bus drivers for damages for alleged sexual assaults. Both insureds claimed to be entitled to be defended by their respective insurers, Wawanesa and Lloyd's. The insurers, relying on their respective exclusion clauses, denied the duty to provide a defence. Wawanesa's insured petitioned for declarations that Wawanesa was obliged to defend him. A Chambers judge granted the petition. Wawa­nesa appealed. Lloyd's itself petitioned for a declaration that it was not obligated to defend its insured. Another Chambers judge dismissed the petition. Lloyd's appealed. The appeals were heard together.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, Finch, J.A., dissenting, allowed both appeals.

Insurance - Topic 725

Insurers - Duties - Duty to defend - Two insured were defendants in an action by the same woman for damages for sexual assaults - Each insured alleged a duty by their respective liability insurers to defend - Both insurers relied on different exclu­sion clauses - Wawanesa's clause excluded "bod­ily injury...caused intentionally" - Lloyd's clause excluded "bodily injury...caused by an intentional or crimi­nal act" - The British Columbia Court of Appeal held that both exclusion clauses operated to exclude any possibility of there being coverage - It was enough if the harm alleged from the acts asserted was a natural and probable result of those acts and the risk of injury was inherent in the insured's act - The court held that neither insurer was required to defend its insured - See paragraphs 77 to 98.

Cases Noticed:

Prudential Assurance Co. v. Manitoba Public Insurance Corp., [1976] 4 W.W.R. 182; 67 D.L.R.(3d) 521 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Bacon v. McBride (1984), 51 B.C.L.R. 228 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 5].

Nichols v. American Home Assurance Co. et al., [1980] 1 S.C.R. 801; 107 N.R. 321; 39 O.A.C. 63, refd to. [para. 5].

Sirois v. Saindon and Co-Operative Fire & Casualty Co., [1976] 1 S.C.R. 735; 4 N.R. 343; 56 D.L.R.(3d) 556, appld. [paras. 18, 77].

Cooperative Fire & Casualty Co. v. Sain­don - see Sirois v. Saindon and Co-Oper­ative Fire & Casualty Co.

Norberg v. Wynrib, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 226; 138 N.R. 81; 9 B.C.A.C. 1; 19 W.A.C. 1; 92 D.L.R.(4th) 449; [1992] 4 W.W.R. 577; 68 B.C.L.R.(2d) 29, refd to. [paras. 21, 87].

Albert v. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. of Michigan (1991), N.W. 2d 282 (Mich. App.), refd to. [para. 34].

Wilkieson-Valiente v. Wilkieson et al., [1996] I.L.R. 1-3351 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. McDonnell (T.E.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 948; 210 N.R. 241; 196 A.R. 321; 141 W.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 35].

Stats v. Mutual of Omaha Insurance Co., [1978] 2 S.C.R. 1153; 22 N.R. 91; 87 D.L.R.(3d) 169, refd to. [para. 50].

Canadian Indemnity Co. v. Walkem Machinery & Equipment Ltd., [1976] 1 S.C.R. 309; 3 N.R. 523, refd to. [para. 50].

Reid Crowther & Partners Ltd. v. Simcoe and Erie General Insurance Co., [1993] 1 S.C.R. 252; 147 N.R. 44; 83 Man.R.(2d) 81; 36 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 65].

Consolidated Bathurst Export v. Mutual Boiler & Machinery Insurance Co., [1980] 1 S.C.R. 888; 32 N.R. 488; 112 D.L.R.(3d) 49, refd to. [para. 65].

Scott v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1445; 94 N.R. 261, refd to. [para. 65].

Ellett Industries Ltd. v. Laurentian P & C Insurance Co. (1996), 73 B.C.A.C. 72; 120 W.A.C. 72; 17 B.C.L.R.(3d) 201; 34 C.C.L.I.(2d) 294 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 68].

Continental Insurance Co. et al. v. Dia Met Minerals Ltd. et al. (1996), 77 B.C.A.C. 251; 126 W.A.C. 251; 20 B.C.L.R.(3d) 331; 36 C.C.L.I.(2d) 7 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 68].

Statutes Noticed:

Insurance Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 226, sect. 28 [para. 52].

Counsel:

M.M. Skorah and J. Lamb, for the appel­lant, Wawanesa;

D.P. Church and I. Schildt, for the respon­dent, Sansalone;

E.A. Dolden, for the appellant, Lloyd's;

B. Cran and M. Madryga, for the respon­dent, Scalera.

This appeal was heard in Vancouver, British Columbia, on February 9 and 10, 1998, before Hollinrake, Finch and Proud­foot, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The decision of the court was delivered on April 9, 1998, and the follow­ing opinions were filed:

Finch, J.A., dissenting - see paragraphs 1 to 73;

Hollinrake, J.A. (Proudfoot, J.A., con­curring) - see paragraphs 74 to 98.