Adjustments to "inmates" don’t signify a major change in threat for the aim of canceling home insurance – Insurance – Germany – Mondaq Information Alerts
To print this article, all you need to do is register or log in to Mondaq.com.
The British Columbia Supreme Court at Dubroy v.
Canadian Northern Shield Insurance Co., 2021 BCSC 352
that household insurance does not expire because it does
There was no significant change in the risk due to a change of occupant.
The Court also found that even if there was a substantial change
At risk, the insured was protected by the principles of the prohibition of exemption
Forfeiture under p. 32 of the Insurance Act, R.S.B.C.
2012, approx. 1 (the "Law").
In April 2016, the plaintiff spoke to a mortgage broker about
Taking out a mortgage on plaintiff's home (the
"Property"). In the mortgage application, the plaintiff has
stated that the property was not their primary residence that it was
should be used as a rental property and which she wanted to live in
the property. One of the terms of the mortgage was that
The plaintiff would take out insurance for the property.
On May 19, 2016 the plaintiff and the plaintiff's brother
signed the insurance application and the defendant agreed
the policy that day. In June 2016, the plaintiff received a
Copy of the policy with a cover letter attached that
asked the plaintiff to tell the defendant whether the apartment
unoccupied, unoccupied or if other changes have occurred
Occupancy. In August 2016, the plaintiff's son and
Daughter-in-law moved in and in October 2016 became the plaintiff
Brother moved out.
On April 12, 2017 and March 28, 2018, the defendant sent
Contract extension documents to the applicant and her brother. These
Documents requested the plaintiff to notify the defendant if
a change in occupancy and failure to do so
The defendant could affect or cancel the policy. The plaintiff
admitted that she had to call the defendant to let her know
the change in occupancy and that she wrote herself a reminder
Note, but she eventually forgot to inform the defendant about it
In June 2017 and May 2018, the plaintiff's grandchildren
or a carpenter has moved into the property. On January 20
In 2019 a fire destroyed the property.
The defendant annulled the policy on the grounds that the plaintiff
the defendant had not informed of material changes in risk that
originated after the policy was issued. Especially after
Police issued the plaintiff's brother, who was a name
insured, moved out and the son, the plaintiff's daughter-in-law,
and a carpenter moved in. The plaintiff did not report this at any time
Complained that these changes took place. It was the
Defendant's view that these changes a
“Significant Change in Risk” and that the policy was void
according to legal requirement 4 of
Significant change in risk
The Court of Justice analyzed the principles of law in relation to a material
Change of risk, noting that in order to successfully argue that the
if the policy was legally revoked, the defendant had to
- there was a major change in risk;
- the change was within the plaintiff's sphere of influence;
- the plaintiff was aware of the change; and
- the plaintiff did not prompt the defendant in
write the change.
The court found that the real question in this case was whether
there has been a significant change in risk since the start of the
Insurance policy up to the day of loss. There was a misunderstanding between
the defendant and the plaintiff whether the property is the
Main residence of the plaintiff; However, the court found that
this did not affect the validity of the policy. Independently of
Misunderstanding that the guideline was valid at the beginning, even though it was even
was not the main residence of the plaintiff. The court ruled that
the risk insured by the defendant at the start of the contract
and at the time of the loss was the same, namely that the property
a private home, the main occupants of which are family members of. were
While the court found that it was important to the plaintiff,
to inform the defendant of any change in the occupancy of the property,
the changes affected "inmates" as opposed to changes
under "Occupancy". The main residents were still
Family members of the plaintiff and the property was not the
Main residence of the plaintiff.
The defendant argued that if it had known that
The plaintiff's brother had moved out and the new residents had
withdrawn, they would not have extended the policy. In response to that
The court ruled that Legal Condition 4 does not allow an insurer to
cancel a policy due to incorrect information in a renewal notice. These
Condition allows a policy to be canceled only on the basis of a
Failure to notify the insurer of a material change in risk.
The court found that the policy was valid, the risk was the same
at the time of inclusion as at the time of loss, and there
was not a basis for policy cancellation. In other words, there weren't any
significant change in risk.
Relief from decay
The court found that even if it was wrong and the plaintiff
failed to disclose a material change in risk was the plaintiff
Entitlement to exemption from the expiry of your insurance policy according to s.
32 of the law.
The court found that provisions such as p. 32 should be given broadly
Scope for relief if the result would otherwise be unfair
or unreasonable. The exemption from decay is purely a matter of discretion
adequate remedy and in deciding whether his
A court must take into account the discretion and granting of reasonable discharge
- the behavior of the applicant;
- the gravity of the violation; and
- the discrepancy between the value of the dilapidated property and
the damage caused by the injury.
The court found that the plaintiff's behavior
imperfect but reasonable. The plaintiff acted honestly and the
The injury was the result of an unfortunate misunderstanding. The
The plaintiff took no steps to remedy the violation, but it did
because she did not reasonably appreciate that there was one
significant change in risk.
The court found that the violation was serious. Based on
Underwriting guidelines, if there had been no breach, it is
very likely that the defendant would reasonably have refused
The defendant admitted that even if he had refused,
Renew the policy, the insurance broker could have found other ways
to insure the property. The court thought it was impossible
to say what would have happened if the plaintiff had the
Complained that the plaintiff's brother moved out and that
other family members had moved in
considered the disparity factor to be neutral.
The defendant admitted that the adequacy of the
The plaintiff's behavior was the most important factor. The court
has weighed all the elements and concluded that the plaintiff acted
imperfect but reasonable, which tipped the scales in favor of
Granting an exemption from forfeiture according to p. 32 of
The court ordered that the plaintiff give a judgment against the
Defendant plus pre-trial interest.
It is imperative to have the specific facts around
significant changes in risk to determine whether an appropriate
the insurer would have the risk at the time of the
the beginnings of politics. Even if a court finds a policy
expires due to a significant change in risk, discharge of
Forfeiture provisions in the law can provide for the following:
remedy the situation for the insured person.
The content of this article is intended to be general
Instructions on the subject. Expert advice should be sought
about your particular circumstances.