On November 15, 2018 the Supreme Court of Canada denied an application for leave to appeal the decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal in Cardinal v Alberta Motor Association Insurance Company, 2018 ABCA 69 (Cardinal).
In Cardinal, the insurer, AMA, issued a standard Alberta automobile policy to the policyholder including both SPF no. 1 and SEF 44 coverage. The policyholder's daughter was injured while riding as a passenger in an automobile that was being operated without the consent of the owner. At issue was whether the daughter was entitled to recover under her mother's SEF 44. The Court of Appeal found in favour of AMA on the basis that the SEF 44 was not a stand-alone policy but an endorsement to the SPF no. 1 and that the Consent of Owner provision of the SPF no. 1 applied to the claim under the SEF 44. That provision reads:
3. CONSENT OF OWNER
No person shall be entitled to indemnity or payment under this
Policy who is an occupant of any automobile which is being used
without the consent of the owner thereof.
The fact that the daughter did not know that the driver was using the automobile without the consent of its owner did not affect this result.
For a more detailed analysis of the Court of Appeal's decision in Cardinal see the case summary published in Field Law's February 2018 edition of Defence + Indemnity.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.