Reasons Not to Travel With Your Bling

The Ontario Court docket of Enchantment lately launched a short resolution in Demetriou v. AIG Insurance coverage Firm of Canada, overturning a choice on a abstract judgment movement.

The declare concerned a person who had traveled to a resort in Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Sadly he did no go away his ring at dwelling, and wore it on a gold chain round his neck. This was a particular ring, one which had been handed on to him by his maternal grandmother, and he had been offered it by his dad and mom in order that in the future he might give it to one in all his personal kids.

One night time, when he was strolling late at night time on the seashore whereas smoking a cigar, he claims {that a} unusual man approached him with a knife, and demanded that he present the ring and the chain.

Thankfully, he had appraised the ring prior to his departure for a whopping $550,000 (plus HST). He made certain that he insured this ring for $581,951, with an annual premium of $10,011. The chain was solely value a measly $10,000, barely sufficient to cowl a single yr of the ring’s insurance coverage premium.

What makes this story fascinating, other than the cautionary story about journey ideas, is that the earlier yr the plaintiff had misplaced one other very priceless ring, his spouse’s engagement ring, and had recovered a large quantity from an insurer.

In case your spidey senses are tingling, you’re not alone.

The insurer has expressly disclaimed any reliance on fraud or deliberate acts. On that foundation, the movement decide ordered the insurer to pay the declare, and awarded the plaintiff punitive damages for dangerous religion.

On attraction, the insurer claimed the movement decide erred by failing to enable the insurer to amend its pleadings to depend on exclusions within the protection for deliberate acts or fraud, and for overlooking the suspicious circumstances within the case.

One of many the reason why fraud is probably not plead on the outset of a continuing is Rule 25.06(8), which states,

25.06(8) The place fraud, misrepresentation, breach of belief, malice or intent is alleged, the pleading shall include full particulars, however information could also be alleged as a reality with out pleading the circumstances from which it’s to be inferred.

Pleading fraud prematurely, with none factual information, can itself be a foundation for claiming dangerous religion and punitive damages.

The insurer did embrace a paragraph of their defence that included a reliance on the insurer’s insurance policies, which included a Declaration Web page, Amended Declaration Web page, and coverage wordings, together with the next exclusion clauses,

21. Intentional Acts

We don’t cowl any loss brought on by an act, whose penalties might have been foreseen by an affordable individual, dedicated:

a. By or on the route of an insured individual; and

b. With the intent to trigger loss or harm.

22. Dishonest Acts

We do cowl any loss brought on by any dishonest or felony act by, or on the route, of you or an insured individual.

F. Intentional Act

An Intentional act is one whose penalties might have been foreseen by an affordable individual.

We don’t cowl any loss brought on by any intentional act dedicated:

1. By or on the route of you or a member of the family; and

2.With the intent to trigger loss.

G. Dishonest Acts

We don’t cowl any loss brought on by any dishonest or felony act(s) by or on the route of you or any member of the family.

The plaintiff did request particulars, particularly asking whether or not the insurer was taking the place that there was any fraud by the plaintiff. The insurer confirmed it was not particularly counting on these exclusions, however reserved the precise to depend on them if additional info was accessible.

The movement decide shouldn’t have ignored the circumstances of the lacking ring, and interpreted these circumstances improperly in gentle of a possible declare for fraud. The Court docket of Enchantment acknowledged,

[6] The movement decide reversed the burden of proof by ignoring these “suspicious circumstances” in relation to whether or not the respondent had confirmed his declare. In Shakur v. Pilot Insurance coverage Co.(1990), 1990 CanLII 6671 (ON CA)74 O.R. (second) 673 (C.A.), an analogous case the place the insurer didn’t settle for that the insured had proved that her jewelry was stolen, this court docket acknowledged at p. 681:

It’s elementary insurance coverage legislation that the burden of proof rests on the insured to set up a proper to recuperate below the phrases of the coverage. On this case, the burden rested on the respondent and remained on the respondent to show on the stability of chances {that a} theft of her jewelry had occurred. That the appellant, in denying the allegation of theft, impliedly alleged that the respondent was fraudulent in placing ahead the declare by no means shifted the fundamental burden of proof resting on the respondent.

[7] The movement decide on this case discovered that Shakur didn’t apply and was distinguishable as a result of on this case the insurer had disclaimed reliance on fraud. He erred in so doing. Whereas the appellant didn’t invoke the coverage exclusions relating to fraud, the appellant was clearly difficult the respondent’s model of occasions. Shakur is binding and applies to this case. The first difficulty was not whether or not the insurer had established fraud, however whether or not the insured had proved on a stability of chances that theft of the ring had “occurred throughout the that means of the coverage”: Shakurat pp. 681-682.

The motions decide refused to enable an modification to plead fraud, as a result of this reduction got here at a late stage within the proceedings,

[76] Whereas, pursuant to Rule 26.01, the court docket is to grant go away to amend at any stage of an motion, there comes a degree the place prejudice is presumed, and amendments won’t be allowed: 1588444 Ontario Ltd. v. State Farm Fireplace and Casualty Co.2017 ONCA 42 (CanLII)135 O.R. (3d) 681; and Household Delicatessen Ltd. v. London (Metropolis)2006 CanLII 5135 (ON CA)[2006] O.J. No.669 (C.A.).

[79] Within the case earlier than me, placing apart the truth that there isn’t any precise movement earlier than me to amend the assertion of defence, the case has been carried out to date on the idea that there isn’t any allegation of fraud however an order of the court docket that required AIG to allege fraud and it declined to achieve this. Examinations for discovery have been carried out on that foundation, and the motion has been readied for trial or a abstract judgment movement on that foundation. It is just too late to reverse course now.

The Court docket of Enchantment disagreed with this interpretation of Rule 26.01,

[9] In our view, the movement decide was required to take a tough have a look at the whole file on the abstract judgment movement so as to decide whether or not there was a real difficulty requiring a trial or whether or not he might determine the case on abstract judgment. As a result of he didn’t achieve this, it’s up to this court docket to achieve this on the file. In our view, it’s clear that the credibility of the declare and of the claimant was squarely in difficulty and requires a trial.

That story of the lengthy stroll on the seashore, with over half one million {dollars} round your neck, is definitely a narrative worthy of a full trial. It’s a trial a couple of, I’m certain, would love to observe.

Reasons Not to Travel With Your Bling


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.