Smith v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co., (1977) 5 A.R. 126 (DC)

• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: January 17, 1977
• Citations: (1977), 5 A.R. 126 (DC)

Smith v. Wawanesa Mutual (1977), 5 A.R. 126 (DC)

MLB headnote and full text

Smith v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company

Indexed As: Smith v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co.

Alberta District Court

Judicial District of Edmonton

Belzil, D.C.J.

January 7, 1977.

Summary:

This headnote contains no summary.

Insurance - Topic 6625

Multi-peril property insurance - Household policies - Changes material to the risk - Location of insured goods - The insured under a householder's policy on the contents of her apartment moved to a mobile home with her insured goods without informing the insurer - The Alberta District Court dismissed the insured's action for the proceeds under the policy after a fire loss - The District Court held that, when the goods were removed from the location described in the policy, the policy ceased to apply to the goods.

Cases Noticed:

Smith v. Co-Operative Fire and Casualty Company (1977), 5 A.R. 116, refd to. [para. 1].

Osterreid v. Saskatchewan Government Insurance Office (1964), 47 W.W.R.(N.S.) 677, refd to. [para. 5].

Gorman v. Hand-in-Hand Insurance Company, [1877] I.R. 11 C.L. 224, appld. [para. 8].

Pearson v. Commercial Union, [1876] 1 A.C. 498 (H.L.), appld. [para. 8].

London Assurance Corporation v. Great Northern Transit Company, 29 S.C.R. 577, appld. [para. 8].

Ross v. Scottish Union, 58 S.C.R. 169, appld. [para. 8].

Arnold v. British Colonial (1914), 45 N.B.R. 285, appld. [para. 8].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Ivamy on Fire and Motor Insurance (2nd Ed.), p. 45 [para. 7].

MacGillivray and Parkington on Insurance Law (6th Ed.), pp. 911, 912 [para. 7].

Counsel:

D.C. McKenzie, for the plaintiff;

H.O. Moffet, for the defendant.

This case was heard at Edmonton, Alberta, before BELZIL, D.C.J., of the Alberta Distric Court, Judicial District of Edmonton.

On January 17, 1977, BELZIL, D.C.J., delivered the following judgment: