When one gets insurance, shouldn't they read the extent of the coverage in the insurance policy? It is easier to write everything one says than to write everything one wants to say.
Few are those who read their insurance policy carefully when they receive a copy. An insured who had read and understood it had to take his case to the Court of Appeal to have it confirmed.
An insured covered up to $30,000 by a multi-risk insurance policy and having been burglarized, claims compensation from his insurer in the following days. The latter refuses on the grounds that the insurance policy does not cover the stolen property, namely: a collection of stamps, coins, and other items consisting of "a collection of hockey cards, autographs, and other memorabilia related to different sports."
Initially, the judge of the Superior Court ruled in favor of the insurer and concluded that the insurance policy only covers the furniture "that is usually found in a dwelling" and therefore excludes the collection of hockey cards and autographs. The insurer is therefore forced to pay only the sum of $350 to the insured.
Secondly, Judge Jacques Delisle of the Court of Appeal concluded that the exclusions stated in the insurance policy do not include collections of hockey cards and autographs. The wording of the insurance policy allows us to affirm that the collections in question are covered by the phrase "furniture that is usual in a dwelling". The appeal is therefore granted and the insurer is compelled to pay an additional sum of $28,635 to the insured.
When taking out insurance, should we not read the extent of the coverage of the insurance policy? It's easier to write down everything we say than to write down everything we mean.
* C.A. 500-09-004413-977, 2000-02-11
