Insurance Law

383

Dangerous “fish and chips”

This culinary specialty of British origin was the focus of a decision of the Superior Court (McKnight v. Promutuel Assurances Boréale, 2020 QCCS 71) confirmed just before Christmas 2022 by the Court of Appeal (Promutuel Assurance Boréale v. McKnight, 2022 QCCA 1735).

This decision is interesting with respect to two aspects that we have previously discussed, namely:

  1. the level of proof by presumption of fact required when the insurer invokes arson as the reason to refuse to indemnify its insured (RSS Webinar “Evidence by Presumption: Utility and Pitfalls” available online), as well as
  2. the protection afforded to the adjuster’s report and its admissibility in evidence.

The loss

The insured, owner of a mobile home that she has been gradually renovating over the years, was insured for replacement value.

At the end of June 2014, she decided to cook fish and chips by heating oil in a pot in which she first blanched her potatoes, but realized that she would not have enough fish. As such, she turns off the heat, pushes the pot of oil onto the back burner and decides to go fishing with her partner. While she was away, a fire completely destroyed the residence and its contents. The investigation revealed that one of the burners had been left in the maximum power position.

The insurer denied coverage, claiming that the insured had acted intentionally, especially since the insured had given a confused and contradictory account of her whereabouts. However, the insurer’s forensic expert had initially concluded that the cause was undetermined and could have been the result of a smoker’s article or an electrical problem in this old building. He later changed his mind and concluded that the cause was voluntary when he was informed that a neighbor living across the street had seen the insured leave the premises about ten minutes after she had noticed black smoke coming from behind the house.

The Decisions

Unfortunately for the insurer, the trial judge, in a detailed decision, meticulously analyzing the evidence submitted to her, explained why she could not attach sufficient credibility to the testimony of the neighbor across the street to allow the insurer to reverse the heavy burden of proving the insured’s voluntary act, even though the latter had given unreliable, confused and contradictory testimony in certain respects.

The Court of Appeal recalled that the burden of proof by presumption of serious, precise and concordant facts is heavy and must allow the Court to draw a “powerful inference” from the facts, allowing it to conclude that the unknown fact (the voluntary act) was established from the known facts put in evidence.

Having rejected the reliability of the neighbor’s testimony for a variety of reasons, including the imprecision of the time frame, the Court of Appeal agreed with the trial judge that the revised conclusion of the insurer’s forensic expert could no longer stand. As the insurer was unable to reverse the burden of proof, the claim was allowed and this decision was confirmed on appeal.

The adjuster’s report

At trial, the insurer objected to the introduction into evidence of its claims adjuster’s report and the information he had gathered from certain witnesses whose versions were likely to undermine the insurer’s claims regarding the circumstances of the fire. The trial judge had rejected the insurer’s objection: the report could not benefit from litigation privilege because, when it was prepared, the litigation had not yet arisen, thereby reiterating the principles set out by the Supreme Court in Blank[1].

However, the Court of Appeal disagreed with the trial judge, stating that Blank did not concern the disclosure of a claims adjuster’s report: the Court preferred to follow the judgment in Union canadienne (L’), compagnie d’assurances v. St-Pierre[2]. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal concluded that the majority of Quebec case law, with a few exceptions, holds that the reports of a claims adjuster “are automatically considered privileged, regardless of the circumstances in which they were prepared” [par. 55]. Acknowledging that this interpretation could possibly be interpreted as going beyond the teachings of the Supreme Court in Blank or Lizotte[3], the Court added: “it must be noted, however, that this interpretation seems to have been applied uniformly in Quebec since then. [par. 56].

Finally, although it disagreed with the trial judge on this issue, the Court of Appeal concluded that it had not been established that the admission into evidence of the adjuster’s report would have affected the outcome of the dispute: it therefore dismissed the appeal in its entirety and all the arguments submitted to it.

In this crispy case, the “fish and chips” did finally not favour the insured, who saw her home completely destroyed, nor the insurer, whose defence was dismissed.

[1] Blank v. Canada (Ministre de la Justice), 2006 CSC 39, [2006] 2 RCS 319.

[2] 2012 QCCA 433.

[3] Lizotte v. Aviva, Compagnie d’assurance du Canada, 2016 CSC 52, [2016] 2 RCS 521.

383

Authors

Patrick Henry

Lawyer, Partner

Articles in the same category

An Automobile Accident Is Not Necessarily an Automobile Accident

Our readers will recall that many decisions have been rendered in recent years analyzing, in very specific cases, what might constitute an automobile accident under the Automobile Insurance Act (AIA). Several decisions have been rendered by both the Supreme Court of Canada[1] and the Court of Appeal[2]. The Administrative Tribunal of Québec (TAQ) recently rendered […]

Nothing Lasts Forever (Not Even a Lifetime Warranty)

In a recent judgment, Hamann v. Matériaux de construction Oldcastle Canada inc., 2024 QCCA 1705, the Québec Court of Appeal (the “CA”) confirmed a ruling of the Québec Superior Court (the “SC”) dismissing an originating application because of the applicant’s failure to institute proceedings within three years of discovering damage to his roof tiles, which […]

1, 2, 3, and the Dishwasher Goes…

No, it was not a former Minister of Energy who made it disappear, but rather a planned obsolescence, carefully concealed in the complexities of the manufacturing components so that the product purchased becomes defective, coercing you to replace it sooner. Fortunately, the Government has responded, and we explain how. Introduction In June 2023, the Minister […]

The Excavator Lost Its Mind, But The Court Of Appeal Did Not!

You may recall our newsletter of July 17, 2023, summarizing a judgment concerning the important burden placed on a manufacturer by the Civil Code of Québec (C.C.Q.). In AIG Insurance Company of Canada et al. v. Mécano Mobile R.L. Inc. et al. 2023 QCCS 1935, the Superior Court dismissed the insurer’s claim against the manufacturer/seller, […]

Fraudulent Statements: Always a Question of Credibility… and of Interest!

In a recent judgment, the Court of Appeal reviews and confirms the Superior Court’s decision in Paul-Hus v. Sun Life Assurance Company, which was commented on in our newsletter of October 31, 2023. Review of the facts On March 13, 2015, Automobiles Illimitées, of which the applicant Paul-Hus is the sole shareholder, applied for a […]

Construction and Loss of the Work: When Does the Countdown Start?

When it comes to prescription, it is often difficult to determine a starting point and a precise calculation, especially when the damage or loss manifests gradually. This issue was analyzed in a very recent judgment rendered by the Honourable Marie Ève Bélanger in Syndicat des Copropriétaires du 600, de la Gare v. Village de la […]