Digests

Decision Information

Decision Content

Ocean Fisheries Ltd. v. Pacific Coast Fishermen's Mutual Marine Insurance Co.

T-2205-96

Teitelbaum J.

26/3/97

11 pp.

Appeal from prothonotary's order staying appellant's action, ordering it to arbitration in dispute over insurance coverage-Action brought by appellant, Ocean Fisheries Ltd., against insurance carrier, Mutual Marine Insurance Co. for insured value on vessel-Mutual rejecting appellant's claim for total loss of ship on basis North Land, when capsized, not captained by skipper approved under terms of Ocean's insurance policy-Prothonotary upholding Mutual's motion, staying Ocean's action against Mutual-Under doctrine of contra proferentem, ambiguities in insurance policy, company by-laws, should be strictly read against Mutual because it had authored policy, by-laws-By laws, section 13, entitled "Claims", providing for arbitration in cases where terms of settlement unsatisfactory-By-laws, section 15, entitled "Disputes", concerning resolution of disputes between insured member, shareholder and Mutual-By-laws should be considered ambiguous-Mere fact insurance carrier mutual insurance company not enough to conclude contra proferentem doctrine should not apply-No identity of interest between Mutual and Ocean-Ambiguities in contract of insurance to be construed against insurer-No suggestion policies issued by mutual insurance companies should be dealt with in different manner from policies issued by any other insurance company-Prothonotary wrong when concluding contra proferentem doctrine did not apply to facts of case, sections 13, 15 not ambiguous-Also wrong when holding facts of case not covered by section 13 but covered by section 15-Court having residual jurisdiction to determine whether Ocean's dispute fell within ambit of arbitration provisions in by-laws-Section 13 concerning "claims" relevant bylaw-Not purely optional clause-Dispute not falling within by-laws, section 15 which deals with dispute "arising out of affairs of Company"-Section 15 ambiguous, must be interpreted against respondent-Appeal allowed.

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.