VI. selected issues in interpreting insurance policies 4


VII. PUBLIC POLICY RESTRICTIONS



Download 296.18 Kb.
Page5/10
Date28.05.2018
Size296.18 Kb.
#50646
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10

VII. PUBLIC POLICY RESTRICTIONS


  • BCIA s. 35:

    • (1) Despite section 5, if a contract contains a term or condition excluding coverage for loss or damage to property caused by a criminal or intentional act or omission of an insured or any other person, the exclusion applies only to the claim of a person

      • (a) whose act or omission caused the loss or damage,

      • (b) who abetted or colluded in the act or omission,

      • (c) who

      • (d) who is in a class prescribed by regulation.

    • (2) Nothing in subsection (1) allows a person whose property is insured under the contract to recover more than their proportionate interest in the lost or damaged property.

    • (3) A person whose coverage under a contract would be excluded but for subsection (1) must comply with any requirements prescribed by regulation.

    • Indemnification for innocent co-insured’s proportionate share in subject property- nature of innocent co-insured’s interest in property irrelevant

    • Intentional/criminal conduct exclusion limited to persons implicated in wrongdoing or prescribed by regulation

    • Protects victims of domestic violence

    • Note: limited to property damage or loss; does not include indemnification for bodily injury or death

  • BC Reg 114/2013 s. 7

    • (1)  For the purposes of section 35 (1) (d) [recovery by innocent persons] of the Act, all classes of persons other than natural persons are prescribed.

    • (2) For the purposes of section 35 (3) of the Act, a person described by that provision must co-operate with the insurer in respect of the investigation of the loss, including, without limitation,

      • (a) by submitting to an examination under oath, if requested by the insurer, and

      • (b) by producing, for examination at a reasonable time and place designated by the insurer, documents specified by the insurer that relate to the loss.

  • BCI(V)A s. 76(6)

    • The following do not prejudice the right of a person entitled under subsection (2) to have the insurance money applied toward the person's judgment or settlement, and are not available to the insurer as a defence to an action under subsection (3):

      • (c) contravention of the Criminal Code or of a law or statute of any province, state or country by the owner, lessee or driver of the vehicle specified in the owner's certificate or policy.

  • Where an insurance contract provides coverage for a particular loss, payment of the insurance proceeds may nonetheless be prohibited by public policy

    • Courts rely on public policy to nullify the operation of a contract where completion of the contract would violate the social or moral values of society- public policy will always trump contractual terms

Criminal Acts


  • Common law: a criminal should not benefit from his crime (criminal forfeiture principle)

    • Extends to the criminal’s estate and to anyone claiming through the estate

      • But some courts have suggested in obiter that this should be reformed because of the inherent unfairness of allowing a named beneficiary to recover, but not the insured’s estate- this distinction seems arbitrary

        • As a matter of law, a criminal’s estate stands in the shoes of the criminal, but a beneficiary under an insurance policy does not

  • Statutory modification: BCIA s. 5 restricts the application of the criminal forfeiture rule to circumstances in which the insured commits a criminal act with the intention of bringing about a loss

    • Exceptions:

      • Loss or damage caused by insured or 3rd party with insured’s consent intended to cause loss

      • Contractual terms can override statutory provision (BCIA s. 5)

      • Life insurance: criminal forfeiture applies, except to insurance payable under the contract in the event that the person whose life is insured becomes disabled from bodily injury or disease

  • Public policy rules are not constrained by contractual terms

    • An insurance contract designed to cover illegal activity is unenforceable

    • Public policy considerations do not impact the legal status of the contract so as to render it void or invalid- they simply render it unenforceable on moral grounds

      • Particular claim fails and insurer is excused from contractual obligation, but contract remains valid

    • But the need to resort to public policy can be avoided by a well-drafted contract

    • Reliance on public policy is necessary where the contract is silent on the issue

Oldfield v. Transamerica and Goulet v. Transamerica (SCC 2002)


  • Oldfield was insured under a life insurance policy naming his wife as the beneficiary, died of a heart attack when a cocaine-filled condom in his stomach unexpectedly ruptured

  • Goulet had life insurance naming his wife as a beneficiary and died when a car bomb he was planting unexpectedly exploded

  • Insurer in both cases argued that payment of insurance proceeds would violate the criminal forfeiture principle

  • SCC held in both cases that public policy did not prohibit payment- the beneficiaries were not participants in the criminal acts in question- payment to them did not benefit the guilty insureds


Download 296.18 Kb.

Share with your friends:
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10




The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2024
send message

    Main page