SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
Consolidated-Bathurst v. Mutual Boiler, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 888
Date: 1979-12-21
Consolidated-Bathurst Export Limited (Plaintiff) Appellant;
and
Mutual Boiler and Machinery Insurance Company (Defendant) Respondent.
1979: March 13; 1979: December 21,
Present: Martland, Ritchie, Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz, Estey, and McIntyre JJ.
ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR QUEBEC
Insurance — Interpretation of insurance contracts — Definition of accident — Direct and consequential damages.
The appellant, a manufacturer of paper products, was required to shut down part of its facilities because of the failure of three heat exchangers and thereby suffered a loss of $158,289.24 of which $15,604.44 was direct damage to the tubes in the heaters. The respondent is the insurer under a policy issued in respect of certain property of the appellant including these heat exchangers. The respondent resists the appellant's claim for the above mentioned loss on the basis that the damage was caused by corrosion of the tubes inside the heat exchangers and this risk was specifically excluded from the coverage provided by the policy of insurance, This position was adopted in both the Superior Court and the Court of Appeal. Hence the appeal of the plaintiff to this Court.
Held (Martland, Ritchie and McIntyre JJ. dissenting): The appeal should be allowed.
Per Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz and Estey JJ.: The issue is whether the loss occasioned by the corrosion of the heat exchangers is recoverable under the terms of the policy. The heart of the argument is that while the definition of accident in the policy does not include the event of corrosion or similar events such as "wear and tear, deterioration, depletion, or erosion of material" the definition does include, in the appellant's submission, events which succeed and which may be due to the event of corrosion.
In interpreting an insurance contract, effect must first be given to the intention of the parties, to be gathered from the words they have used, just as in any other contract. Step two is the application, when ambiguity is found, of the contra proferentem doctrine by which any doubt as to the meaning and scope of the excluding or limiting term is to be resolved against the party who has inserted it and who is now relying on it. Even apart from
[Page 889]
this doctrine the normal rules of construction lead a court to search for an interpretation which, from the whole of the contract, would appear to promote or advance the true intent of the parties at the time of entry into the contract. There is no dispute that the heat exchangers were covered by the insurance contract. There is also no serious dispute that corrosion of the tubes inside the heat exchanger, probably caused by the presence of sea water, was the effective cause of the breakdown of the heat exchanger. The insurer, as was its right, sought in the terms of the contract to limit its exposure to accidental loss and did so by seeking to confine the definition of accident. To interpret "corrosion" as that word is employed in the definition of accident in the manner sought by the respondent would be to eliminate from the insurance coverage any and all loss suffered by the insured mill operator by reason of the intervention of the condition of corrosion. Such an interpretation would necessarily result in a substantial nullification of coverage under the contract.
Per Martland, Ritchie and McIntyre JJ., dissenting: While the policy here covers damage to property other than the object itself, the coverage is limited to indemnity in respect of loss or damage to property of the insured directly caused to an object by an accident as that word is defined in the policy. Therefore an interpretation which would result in affording coverage to the insured for consequential damages whether it was due to corrosion or otherwise cannot be adopted. The only "direct" damage to any object in the appellant's plant was the damage to the tubes themselves and the plain language of the insuring agreement in defining "accident" appears to contemplate and exclude from coverage the very event which happened here, namely, damage being caused to an object which was the property of the insured as a result of "corrosion of . . material".
[Indemnity Insurance Company of North America v. Excel Cleaning Service, [1954] S.C.R. 169, followed; Pense v. Northern Life Assurance Co. (1907), 15 O.L.R. 131, aff'd (1908), 42 S.C.R. 246; Stevenson v. Reliance Petroleum Ltd.; Reliance Petroleum Ltd. v. Canadian General Insurance Co., [1956] S.C.R. 936; Cornish v.. Accident Insurance Co. (1889), 23 Q.B. 453 (C.A.) referred to.]
APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec affirming a judgment of the Superior Court. Appeal allowed, Martland, Ritchie and McIntyre JJ. dissenting.
[Page 890]
Guy Desjardins, Q.C., for the appellant.
Marcel Cinq-Mars, Q.C., for the respondent.
The reasons of Martland, Ritchie and McIntyre JJ. were delivered by
RITCHIE J. (dissenting)—This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeal of the Province of Quebec affirming the judgment rendered at trial by Mr. Justice Bisson and dismissing the claim of the appellant against its insurer for damage sustained to its property located at a plant which it operated at New Richmond in the Province of Quebec, where it was engaged in the manufacture of paper and paper and wood products.
By reason of their malfunction, direct damage was caused to several tubes in the heaters employed for the heating of bunker "C" fuel with the consequence that temporary closing of the plant became necessary. The appellant's claim in this action encompasses not only the direct damage done to the tubes, but the consequential loss allegedly sustained because of the breakdown of the tubes.
I have had the privilege of reading the reasons for judgment prepared for delivery by my brother Estey in this case, but as I reach a different conclusion concerning the risk insured against by the policy in question, I have found it necessary to express my views separately.
The appellant's claim is made pursuant to the terms of an insurance agreement with the respondent which was in force at the time of the events above referred to whereby the respondent agreed
In consideration of the Premium the Company does hereby agree with the named Insured respecting loss from an Accident, as defined herein, as follows:
1. ... To pay the Insured for loss or damage to property of the Insured directly caused by such Accident to an Object, or if the Company so elects, to repair or replace such damaged property; ..
(The italics are my own.)
The objects covered by the policy are defined in the 1st Schedule thereof as follows:
[Page 891]
The Objects covered under this Schedule are of the type designated as follows:
1. Any metal fired or metal unfired pressure valve; and
2. Any piping, on or between premises of the Insured, connected with such vessel and which contains steam or other heat transfer medium or condensate thereof, air, refrigerant, or boiler feedwater between the feed pump or injector and a boiler, together with the valves, fittings, separators and traps on all such piping.
What is insured against by this agreement in my opinion is damage to the property of the insured "directly caused to an "object" by an "accident" as that word is defined in the policy. While the policy covers damage to property other than the object itself, it only covers that damage when it has been directly caused by "accident" to an "object". I am satisfied that the tubes were "objects" within the meaning of the above definition and that damage directly caused to the tubes would have been covered by the insurance agreement had it not been for the terms of the definition of "accident" contained therein which reads as follows:
C. Definition of Accident—As respects any Object covered under this Schedule, 'Accident' shall mean any sudden and accidental occurrence to the Object, or a part thereof, which results in damage to the Object and necessitates repair or replacement of the Object or part thereof; but Accident shall not mean (a) depletion, deterioration, corrosion, or erosion of material, (b) wear and tear (c) leakage at any valve, fitting, shaft seal, gland packing, joint or connection, (d) the breakdown of any vacuum tube, gas tube or brush, (e) the breakdown of any structure or foundation supporting the Object or any part thereof, nor (f) the functioning of any safety device or protection device.
(The italics are my own.)
Both the trial judge and the Court of Appeal were satisfied that the damage to the tubes was occasioned by corrosion and this conclusion is supported by the fact that quantities of salt water did flow through the pipes. Expert evidence was called on behalf of the appellant directed to supporting the submission that the damage was caused by an hydraulic hammer effect of sudden
[Page 892]
origin which placed an inordinate strain on the pipes and tubes causing them to break. This evidence was, however, not accepted either at trial or in the Court of Appeal and I do not find it necessary to discuss it. In the result it has been concurrently found at trial and on appeal that corrosion was the cause of the damage to the tubes and pipes and it follows from the terms of the "definition of accident" that this damage is not insured against by the policy in question.
It was contended also that even if the coverage afforded by the policy did not include damage by "depletion, deterioration, corrosion" or "wear and tear" within the meaning of the definition of "accident", it was nevertheless effective to make the insurer responsible for consequential loss suffered by the insured as a result of a sudden rupture of the heat exchanger, whether due to corrosion or not. In view of the fact that the coverage is limited to indemnity in respect of loss or "damage to property of the insured directly caused by such accident to an Object", I cannot adopt an interpretation which would result in affording coverage to the insured for consequential damage whether it was due to "corrosion" or otherwise. In my opinion, the only "direct" damage to any object in the appellant's plant was the damage to the tubes themselves and the plain language of the insuring agreement in defining "accident" appears to me to contemplate and exclude from coverage the very event which happened here, namely, damage being caused to an object which was the property of the insured as a result of "corrosion of ... material".
It has been suggested that the language employed in the policy should be construed against the insurance company which was the author of it in accordance with the contra proferentem rule which is frequently invoked in the construction of insurance contracts when it is found that all other rules of construction fail to assist the Court in determining the true meaning of the policy.
In this regard my brother Estey has made reference to the reasons for judgment of Cartwright J., as he then was, in Stevenson v. Reliance Petroleum Limited; Reliance Petroleum Limited v. Canadian General Insurance Company[1]
[Page 893]
where he said at p. 953:
The rule expressed in the maxim, verba fortius accipiuntur contra proferentem, was pressed upon us in argument, but resort is to be had to this rule only when all other rules of construction fail to enable the Court of construction to ascertain the meaning of a document.
It will however be seen from what I have said that I do not find it necessary to resort to this rule in the interpretation of the policy here at issue.
My brother Estey has, however, adopted the view that in construing the policy and particularly the definition of accident contained therein in the manner adopted in these reasons and in those of the majority of the Court of Appeal, the result is to "largely, if not completely, nullify the purpose for which the insurance was sold" which is "a circumstances to be avoided so far as the language used will permit". In this regard reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in Indemnity Insurance Company of North America v. Excel Cleaning Service[2], at pp. 177-178, but with the greatest respect I am unable to relate the circumstances of that case to those with which we are here concerned.
The Excel Cleaning Service case was one in which an "on location cleaning service" business was covered by a property damage liability policy insuring it for damage to property caused by accident arising out of its work. This policy however contained an exclusion relating "to damage to or destruction of property owned, rented, occupied or used by or in the care, custody and control of the insured", and the insurer contended that a wall to wall carpet fixed to the floor of a house where the insured was employed which was damaged was "in the care, custody and control of the insured" and therefore excluded from the coverage. Consistent with this reasoning all of the customer's belongings on which the insured was working were similarly exclusions which would have meant that the policy afforded no coverage whatever for the business of the insured. It was in this connection that this Court said, at pp. 177-178:
[Page 894]
Such a construction [as advanced by the insurer] would largely, if not completely, nullify the purpose for which the insurance was sold—a circumstance to be avoided, so far as the language used will permit.
I am respectfully of the opinion that this case involves a very different situation from the one with which we are here concerned. The construction sought to be placed on the Excel Cleaning Service Policy would have meant that although it purported to be a property damage liability policy covering the insured's business, it in fact insured nothing whereas the present policy affords insurance "for loss or damage to property of the insured" directly caused by an accident as defined therein. The meaning assigned to the word "accident" in the policy does not constitute an exclusion from the coverage but is rather a part of the definition of the risk insured against.
For all these reasons, as well as for those stated by Mr. Justice Turgeon, I would dismiss this appeal with costs.
The judgment of Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz and Estey JJ. was delivered by
ESTEY J.—The appellant operates a manufacturing facility for the production of paper products, including paper boxes, at New Richmond, Quebec, and the respondent is the insurer under a policy of insurance issued in respect of certain property of the appellant including the property with which this action is concerned, being three heat exchangers. The heat exchangers in question are described by the trial judge as follows:
[TRANSLATION] The parts of this system with which we are particularly concerned are three heat exchangers, a type of pipe measuring fifteen feet long with an interior diameter of ten inches.
Within each of these three exchangers there are 102 tubes thirteen feet long, with an exterior diameter of 5/8 inch and a metal casing measuring 1/16 inch, or .065 inch.
Inside each exchanger at the ends the 102 pipes pass through a tubular metal plate one inch thick.
Further, the 102 tubes of each exchanger are themselves divided into three groups of 34 tubes each, so that oil flowing in the tubes passes around the exchanger
[Page 895]
three times and is heated to the right level before emerging and being directed towards the boilers as a fuel.
Steam circulates in the exchangers, passing in through the left end immediately to the right of the tubular plate and emerging at the right end, just as it strikes the other tubular plate.
Each exchanger is sealed at each end by a lid.
As the exchanger measures fifteen feet and the tubes thirteen feet, it follows that a space of one foot remains at each end between the tubular plate and the lid closing the exchanger.
The whole apparatus forms a sealed unit, which it was established cannot be opened without causing a breakdown and considerable damage.
Due to the failure of these heat exchangers, the appellant was required to shut down part of their facilities and thereby suffered a loss which the parties have agreed amounted to $158,289.24. This sum is set out in the Plaintiff's Declaration and includes "Direct Damage Loss" of $15,604.44. The insurer resists the appellant's claim on the basis that the damage was caused by corrosion of the tubes inside the heat exchanger and this risk was specifically excluded from the coverage provided by the policy of insurance. The material provisions of the policy of insurance issued by the respondent are as follows:
INSURING AGREEMENT
In consideration of the Premium the Company does hereby agree with the named Insured respecting loss from an Accident, as defined herein, as follows:
COVERAGE A—PROPERTY OF THE INSURED
1. ACTUAL CASH VALUE—To pay the Insured for loss of or damage to property of the Insured directly caused by such Accident to an Object, or if the Company so elects, to repair or replace such damaged property; and
The definition of accident as employed in the above excerpt is as follows:
As respects any Object covered under this Schedule, "Accident" shall mean any sudden and accidental occurrence to the Object, or a part thereof, which results in damage to the Object and necessitates repair or
[Page 896]
replacement of the Object or part thereof; but Accident shall not mean (a) depletion, deterioration, corrosion, or erosion of material, (b) wear and tear, (c) leakage at any value, fitting, shaft seal, gland packing, joint or connection, (d) the breakdown of any vacuum tube, gas tube or brush, (e) the breakdown of any structure or foundation supporting the Object or any part thereof, nor (f) the functioning of any safety device or protective device.
The employees of the appellant became aware of the failure of the heat exchangers when small fuel oil spots were noticed on linerboard being produced in the mill. The source of the oil was traced to the boiler and hence to the heat exchangers where a number of ruptured tubes were discovered.
The appellant advanced two main submissions:
(a) that the damage was caused by hydraulic hammer effect; and,
(b) alternatively, that the damage was caused by corrosion and that the terms of the policy do not exclude damage thus occasioned.
The learned trial judge found that the damage was caused by corrosion and discusses the contribution of pressure changes as follows:
[TRANSLATION] There is no doubt that the damage occurred suddenly, but the phenomenon which led up to it, namely the chemical process of corrosion, was not of a sudden and accidental nature, so that it could not be regarded as an "accident".
On December 4, 1968 some occurrence, probably a fall in the steam pressure in the heat exchanger, caused a failure in certain oil tubes, which moreover apparently broke in a relatively short space of time.
The fact remains, however, that corrosion was the cause of the damage.
The majority of the Court of Appeal found the damage was the result of corrosion and thereby excluded from policy coverage. Turgeon J.A. dealt with the hydraulic hammer theory as follows:
[TRANSLATION] This was a possibility, not a probability, mentioned by appellant's expert witness Mahoney in his examination in chief. However, when he was
[Page 897]
cross-examined, he admitted that he could not provide any direct evidence that a "hydraulic hammer" effect was produced, or that there was excessive pressure, or that the safety valves did not operate effectively.
Dissenting from the majority, Kaufman J.A. appears to have adopted in part the hydraulic hammer theory as being a "trigger" which precipitated the leaks in the tubes. The learned justice went on to state:
But where, as here, the pressure suddenly increased, it will not do for the insurer to point to the corrosion and say that, sooner or later, the tubes would have burst anyway.
Thus it will be seen that in both courts below the cause of the damage was found to be corrosion of the tubes which both courts went on to conclude was a risk or peril not covered by the insurance contract.
The issue is simply, therefore, whether the admitted loss suffered by the appellant and which was occasioned by the corrosion of the heat exchangers is a loss recoverable under the above-quoted terms of the policy of insurance issued by the respondent to the appellant. This leaves the alternative submission advanced by the appellant, namely that the term of the contract of insurance covers the damages suffered by the appellant. The heart of this argument is that while the definition of accident does not include the event of corrosion or similar events such as "wear and tear, deterioration, depletion, or erosion of material", the definition does include, in the appellant's submission, events which succeed and which may be due to the event of corrosion. Thus the insurer would not be liable under the contract for the cost of repairing or replacing any insured property damaged by "depletion, deterioration, corrosion, wear and tear, etc.", but would be responsible for any consequential loss to the insured following the sudden rupture of the heat exchanger whether or not it be due to "corrosion" or "wear and tear", etc.
In the preliminary provisions setting up the coverage under the policy of insurance, the definition of accident is, of course, fundamental, and stripping
[Page 898]
out the words not here relevant, the definition reads as follows:
Accident shall mean a sudden and accidental occurrence to the object ... but accident shall not mean ... corrosion...
Some light may be thrown on this interpretation difficulty by reference to a latter portion of the policy of insurance headed "Exclusions". The following excerpts illustrate the drafting technique employed in the policy where risks are to be excluded from its coverage:
EXCLUSIONS This policy does not apply to
1. WAR DAMAGE—Loss from an Accident caused directly or indirectly by
(a) Hostile or warlike action, including action in hindering, combating or defending against an actual, impending or expected attack, by
…
2. NUCLEAR HAZARDS—Loss, whether it be direct or indirect, proximate or remote,
(a) From an Accident caused directly or indirectly by nuclear reaction .. .
(b) From nuclear reaction, nuclear radiation or radioactive contamination, all whether controlled or uncontrolled, caused directly or indirectly by, contributed to or aggravated by an Accident;
3. MISCELLANEOUS PERILS—Loss under Coverages A and B from
…
(b) An Accident caused directly or indirectly by fire or from the use of water or other means to extinguish fire;
…
(d) Flood unless an Accident ensues and the Company shall then be liable only for loss from such ensuing Accident;
(Emphasis added.)
Thus it may be argued that when the draftsman wished to exclude consequences from an event, the words "directly or indirectly" were employed. Had
[Page 899]
this technique been adopted in the primary coverage provisions excerpted above, it would have read;
Accident does not mean that which directly or indirectly results from corrosion.
Alternatively, if the consequences of corrosion were intended by the parties to be beyond the protection of the contract, such circumstances would have been included under the heading "Exclusions" as a subparagraph comparable to one of those set out above.
At best, one must conclude that the definition of accident, including as it does the reference to corrosion, leaves two clear alternative interpretations open. Firstly, the definition may not include an event relating to corrosion. Secondly, the definition may exclude only the cost of making good the corrosion itself.
Insurance contracts and the interpretative difficulties arising therein have been before courts for at least two centuries, and it is trite to say that where an ambiguity is found to exist in the terminology employed in the contract, such terminology shall be construed against the insurance carrier as being the author, or at least the party in control of the contents of the contract. This is, of course, not entirely true because of statutory modifications to the contract, but we are not here concerned with any such mandated provisions. Meredith J.A. put the proposition in Pense v. Northern Life Assurance Co.[3] at p. 137:
There is no just reason for applying any different rule of construction to a contract of insurance from that of a contract of any other kind; and there can be no sort of excuse for casting a doubt upon the meaning of such a contract with a view to solving it against the insurer, however much the claim against him may play upon the chords of sympathy, or touch a natural bias. In such a contract, just as in all other contracts, effect must be given to the intention of the parties, to be gathered from the words they have used. A plaintiff must make out from the terms of the contract a right to recover; a defendant must likewise make out any defence based upon the agreement. The onus of proof, if I may use such a term in reference to the interpretation of a writing, is, upon each party respectively, precisely the same. We are all, doubtless, insured, and none insurers,
[Page 900]
and so, doubtless, all more or less affected by the natural bias arising from such a position; and so ought to beware lest that bias be not counteracted by a full apprehension of its existence.
(Adopted in this Court in 1908[4].)
Such a proposition may be referred to as step one in the interpretative process. Step two is the application, when ambiguity is found, of the contra proferentem doctrine. This doctrine finds much expression in our law, and one example which may be referred to is found in Cheshire and Fifoot's Law of Contract (9th ed.), at pp. 152-3:
If there is any doubt as to the meaning and scope of the excluding or limiting term, the ambiguity will be resolved against the party who has inserted it and who is now relying on it. As he seeks to protect himself against liability to which he would otherwise be subject, it is for him to prove that his words clearly and aptly describe the contingency that has in fact arisen.
This Court applied the doctrine in Indemnity Insurance Company of North America v. Excel Cleaning Service[5] where at pp. 179-180 it was stated:
It is, in such a case, a general rule to construe the language used in a manner favourable to the insured. The basis for such being that the insurer, by such clauses, seeks to impose exceptions and limitations to the coverage he has already described and, therefore, should use language that clearly expresses the extent and scope of these exceptions and limitations and, in so far as he fails to do so, the language of the coverage should obtain ... Furthermore, the language of Lord Greene in Woolfall & Rimmer, Ltd. v. Moyle, [1942] 1 K.B. 66 at 73, is appropriate. He there states:
I cannot help thinking that, if underwriters wish to limit by some qualification a risk which, prima facie, they are undertaking in plain terms, they should make it perfectly clear what that qualification is.
As has already been stated, this is, of course, the second phase of interpretation of such a contract. Cartwright J., as he then was, stated in Stevenson v. Reliance Petroleum Limited;
[Page 901]
Reliance Petroleum Limited v. Canadian General Insurance Company[6] at p. 953:
The rule expressed in the maxim, verba fortius accipiuntur contra proferentem, was pressed upon us in argument, but resort is to be had to this rule only when all other rules of construction fail to enable the Court of construction to ascertain the meaning of a document.
Lindley L.J. put it this way:
In a case on the line, in a case of real doubt, the policy ought to be construed most strongly against the insurers; they frame the policy and insert the exceptions. But this principle ought only to be applied for the purpose of removing a doubt, not for the purpose of creating a doubt, or magnifying an ambiguity, when the circumstances of the case raise no real difficulty.
Cornish v. Accident Insurance Company[7], at p. 456.
Even apart from the doctrine of contra proferentem as it may be applied in the construction of contracts, the normal rules of construction lead a court to search for an interpretation which, from the whole of the contract, would appear to promote or advance the true intent of the parties at the time of entry into the contract. Consequently, literal meaning should not be applied where to do so would bring about an unrealistic result or a result which would not be contemplated in the commercial atmosphere in which the insurance was contracted. Where words may bear two constructions, the more reasonable one, that which produces a fair result, must certainly be taken as the interpretation which would promote the intention of the parties. Similarly, an interpretation which defeats the intentions of the parties and their objective in entering into the commercial transaction in the first place should be discarded in favour of an interpretation of the policy which promotes a sensible commercial result. It is trite to observe that an interpretation of an ambiguous contractual provision which would render the endeavour on the part of the insured to obtain insurance protection nugatory, should be avoided. Said another way, the courts should be loath to support a construction which would either enable the insurer to pocket the premium without risk or
[Page 902]
the insured to achieve a recovery which could neither be sensibly sought nor anticipated at the time of the contract.
The Cornish case, supra, illustrates a course generally taken when such contracts reach the courts. There the court was interpreting an insurance contract in the light of the death of the insured while crossing a railway track. The policy included an exception from insured risks resulting from "exposure of the insured to obvious risk of injury". Lindley L.J., in the course of judgment, stated:
The words are "exposure of the insured to obvious risk of injury." These words suggest the following questions: Exposure by whom? Obvious when? Obvious to whom? It is to be observed that the words are very general. There is no such word as "wilful," or "reckless," or "careless"; and to ascertain the true meaning of the exception the whole document must be studied and the object of the parties to it must be steadily borne in mind. The object of the contract is to insure against accidental death and injuries, and the contract must not be construed so as to defeat that object, nor so as to render it practically illusory. A man who crosses an ordinary crowded street is exposed to obvious risk of injury; and, if the words in question are construed literally, the defendants would not be liable in the event of an insured being killed or injured in so crossing, even if he was taking reasonable care of himself. Such a result is so manifestly contrary to the real intention of the parties that a construction which leads to it ought to be rejected. But, if this be true, a Iiteral construction is inadmissible, and some qualification must be put on the words used. (at p. 456)
An example of the application of the same principles is found in the Indemnity Insurance Company of North America v. Excel Cleaning Service, supra, where, at pp. 177-8, it was concluded:
Such a construction [as advanced by the insurer] would largely, if not completely, nullify the purpose for which the insurance was sold—a circumstance to be avoided, so far as the Ianguage used will permit.
The appellant, as the owner and operator of a large forest products facility, sought insurance protection of the machinery employed in the plant in its industrial processes. There is no dispute that the heat exchangers in question were covered by the insurance contract. There is also no serious dispute, at least by the time the litigation had
[Page 903]
reached this Court, that corrosion of the tubes inside the heat exchanger, probably caused by the presence of sea water, was the effective cause of the breakdown of the heat exchanger, and the consequential release of oil into the processed steam. The insurer, as was its right, sought in the terms of the contract to limit its exposure to accidental loss and did so by seeking to confine the definition of accident. If a court were to accept the submissions of the respondent, that loss suffered by the insured by reason of the failure of a machine due to wear and tear and the consequential downtime of the plant was excluded by the definition of accident, then the insured would have purchased, by its premiums, no coverage for what may well be the most likely source of loss, or certainly a risk pervasive through much of the plant. Similarly, to interpret corrosion as that word is employed in the definition of accident in the manner sought by the respondent would be to eliminate from the insurance coverage any and all loss suffered by the insured mill operator by reason of the intervention of the condition of corrosion. Such an interpretation would necessarily result in a substantial nullification of coverage under the contract. It may well be argued by insurers that the premium will reflect such a narrowed coverage. There is no evidence that such is the case here.
It may also be argued by the insurance industry that applying the more favourable construction to this ambiguous provision will be to unnecessarily and unfairly burden the carrier. The carrier under this policy has at least two defensive mechanisms which it can readily call to its aid: firstly, the right of inspection which was exercised here both before and during the contract; and secondly, the right to terminate in the event the insurance carrier determines that the condition of the insured machinery is such as to make it impractical to extend coverage in the manner required by the contract.
I therefore would allow the appeal, set aside the judgment at trial and of the Court of Appeal and direct the entry of judgment in favour of the appellant in the amount of $158,289.24 with interest from the 1st of April, 1969, as claimed (it
[Page 904]
being the date of submission of claim and which date has not been contested in any court in these proceedings), together with costs throughout. In the event the parties are in disagreement as to whether the "Direct Damage" in the amount of $15,604.44 mentioned above is, in fact, repairs of the actual corrosion damage and should not therefore, on the basis of these reasons be included in judgment granted, the matter shall be determined on application to a Judge of the Superior Court.
Appeal allowed with costs, MARTLAND, RITCHIE and MCINTYRE H. dissenting.
Solicitors for the appellant: Desjardins, Ducharme, Desjardins & Bourque, Montreal.
Solicitors for the respondent: Martineau, Walker, Allison, Beaulieu, MacKell & Clermont, Montreal.