A recent judgment by the Superior Court on the professional liability of insurance brokers

In the recent matter of Jolicoeur vs. Rivard Assurances générales inc., 2023 QCCS 1685, the Superior Court analyzed the professional liability of an insurance broker and his brokerage firm, to determine whether they should indemnify plaintiffs for a penalty of $171,463.08 applied by the insurer due to the increased risk of fire discovered following a fire.

The facts are quite simple. On May 30, 2018, plaintiffs met with defendant broker, Katy Savard, at the brokerage firm Rivard Assurances générales inc. to take out an insurance policy for their duplex and another property. During this meeting, Ms. Savard fills out an online form that contains a list of questions for the insurer, L’Unique, Assurances générales. One of the questions relates to the distance between the duplex and the nearest fire station. The system offers a choice of two answers, namely if the building is located at more than 8 kilometers from the fire station or at less than 8 kilometers from the fire station. The evidence at trial shows that plaintiffs respond verbally to the question by indicating “approximately 30 minutes”, without mentioning the actual distance. In the online form, the answer “less than 8 kilometers from the fire station” is selected.

On July 31, 2019, a fire occurs and completely destroys the duplex. After noticing that the building is located at more than 8 kilometers from the station rather than the contrary, L’Unique, the insurer, applies a 44% penalty to the insurance indemnity paid, representing an amount of $171,463.08 that plaintiffs are now claiming from the brokerage firm and broker Savard, alleging professional misconduct by the latter.

At trial, defendants argue that it was plaintiffs’ obligation to make sure the information being communicated was accurate and that the declarations contained in the policy were in accordance with the facts declared. The Court did not retain their arguments, being of the opinion that minimal verifications could have been done by Ms. Savard, namely by using Google Maps to validate the distance between the duplex and the fire station, based on the travel time indicated by plaintiffs. The Court reiterates that an insurance broker must use his judgment and look for any relevant information before recommending insurance coverage to his clients, especially if they are not known to the broker. Justice Dufresne therefore concludes that Ms. Savard is liable for the erroneous answer given to the insurer L’Unique, stating that she was negligent in selecting the option “less than 8 kilometers from the fire station.” The Court therefore condemns the brokerage firm and its broker, solidarily, to pay $171,463.08 to plaintiffs.

This judgment is an important reminder that the obligation of the insured to declare to the insurer the circumstances relevant to the risk assessment has limits. An insurance broker cannot hide behind vague or incomplete information given by his client without making the necessary verifications, otherwise his professional liability may be triggered.

Patricia Baram is part of our Professional Liability Team with, amongst others, Marika Douville and Laurence Gauthier, partners at the firm.



Patricia Baram

Lawyer, Partner

Articles in the same category

The Flowers, the Pot and the Fire

Can the defendant qualify as part of her father’s house and have the action brought against her dismissed? Does the declaration of co-ownership contain clauses that constitute a waiver to sue the co-owners? These are the questions addressed by the Honourable Alexander Pless, Justice of the Superior Court of Quebec, in Intact compagnie d’assurance v. […]

How many insurers does it take to defend an insured?

A recent decision of the Superior Court of Quebec (Perron v. Famille Marie-Jeunesse, 2023 QCCS 1719) provides some insight into when an insured may compel a liability insurer to take up its defence when the insured is already being defended by another insurer. It also provides an example of circumstances where the principle that a […]

The Inevitable Disclosure of Changes in Insurability in Life Insurance Matters

On July 11, in Bourdages v. Ivari, 2023 QCCS 1688 (CanLII), the Superior Court considered the impact of an undisclosed change in the state of health of an insured taking out a life insurance policy, which occurred between the submission of the application and the effective date of the policy. Background to the dispute On […]

The Lake Overflows but the Loss Is Excluded

One will recall the catastrophic events of the evening of April 27 2019 when a dike collapsed in Sainte-Marthe-sur-le-Lac flooding a large neighborhood causing catastrophic damages to property. But was this loss covered by the residential policy issued by La Personnelle? That is the question the Superior Court attempted to answer in the matter of […]

The Excavator Lost its Head

The Civil Code of Quebec places a heavy burden on manufacturers. But can it be reversed? This question was addressed by the Superior Court in a judgment rendered on June 6, 2023 by the Honourable Suzanne Hardy-Lemieux in AIG Insurance Company of Canada et al v. Mécano Mobile R.L. inc. et al, 2023 QCCS 1935 […]

Manufacturers: the heat is on!

An important decision in Product Liability and the obligation of Diligence and Transparency The Court of Appeal recently rendered a decision in CCI Thermal Technologies Inc. c. AXA XL (XL Catlin), 2023 QCCA 231, concerning the liability of the manufacturer and the apportionment of liability between the parties. This case involved twenty separate fires caused […]

Be the first informed:

Subscribe to our communications