Insurance Law


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.



Patrick Henry

Lawyer, Partner

Articles in the same category

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 […]

Four RSS Lawyers Named Litigation Stars

We’re proud to announce that four of our lawyers were named “Litigation Star” by Benchmark Litigation Canada for 2023: Patrick Henry, Lynne Kassie, Hugues Duguay and Vikki Andrighetti. Congratulations for this accomplishment!

Without a Written Conventional Subrogation, Your Recourse May Be Dismissed

On March 28, 2023, the Superior Court of Quebec partially granted a motion to dismiss the case, dealing with the notions of legal subrogation, conventional subrogation and prejudice. This judgment, Gouvernement de la Nation Crie / Cree Nation Government c. 9327-1781 Québec inc., 2023, reminds us that it is essential for a non-insurer to agree […]

Standard Mortage Endorsment: Is it a Shield for the Creditor?

The scope and protection afforded to a mortgage creditor by the standard mortgage endorsement was again analyzed by the Court of Appeal in Roma Capital inc. 2023 QCCA 307. It should be noted that in this decision rendered on March 7, 2023, the Court of Appeal was hesitant since the decision was rendered on a […]

The strict standard applicable to the exclusion clause for suicide

On February 3, 2023, in Bolduc v. SSQ Assurance, 2023 QCCS 266, the Superior Court once again reminded the insurance industry that strict compliance with the rules governing the drafting of exclusion clauses, particularly in the case of suicide, is essential to avoid unfortunate consequences for insurers. The facts in dispute On November 23, 2006, […]

Where do you keep your corrosive cleaner?

The Facts La Capitale was claiming reimbursement of more than $137,000 in compensation paid to its insureds following water damage that occurred in their home on February 2, 2017. La Capitale was thus suing the general contractor who built the residence in 2012, the distributor of the faucet whose flexible pipe failed, as well as […]

Be the first informed:

Subscribe to our communications