Insurance law – Marine insurance – Agents and brokers – Negligent misrepresentation – Jury trials – Striking jury notice
Arctic Pearl Fishing Ltd. v. Intact Insurance Co.,  B.C.J. No. 1665, 2022 BCSC 1549, British Columbia Supreme Court, September 2, 2022, Master K.A. Robertson
The insured acquired a commercial fishing vessel and insured it with the insurer. The insured alleged that the main diesel engine and other machinery or systems suffered damage soon after the insured acquired the vessel. The damage was alleged to have been the result of the engine overheating. The vessel had undergone a complete overhaul before the insured acquired it.
The insured claimed under the policy on the basis that the overheating occurred as a result of negligence in the repairs undertaken to the engine and negligence in the operation of the vessel. The insurer denied the claim on the basis that the damages due to the overheating of the engine were within the deductible, and to the extent there were other damages, they are not covered under the policy.
The insured brought a claim against the insurer. An 8-day trial was scheduled and the insurer took out a jury notice. The insured applied to strike the jury notice on the basis that the matter was not suitable to be tried by a jury. The court dismissed the application.
This case was digested by Cameron B. Elder, and first published in the LexisNexis® Harper Grey Insurance Law Netletter and the Harper Grey Insurance Law Newsletter. If you would like to discuss this case further, please contact Cameron B. Elder at firstname.lastname@example.org.
To stay current with the new case law and emerging legal issues in this area, subscribe here.