(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,
(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,
(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
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