QuickBuBa
05-10-2009, 07:20 PM
Is it just me or those these two cases contradict each other?
Regal Films Corp v. Glenn falls, the insured has a multiperil policy and has a fire loss. The conlusion is that since the risk is fire it should be regulated by the part of the Insurance Act related to Fire Insurance
In KP Pacific Holdings v. Guardian Insurance, the insured also has a multiperil policy and suffers a fire loss but the conclusion is that the insured policy did not fit into a specific category and should be governed by the part of the Insurance Act that does not deal with fire.
So basically, should a multiperil policy be governed by the fire part of the insurance act of each province when the risk is fire or not?
What is your take on this?
Regal Films Corp v. Glenn falls, the insured has a multiperil policy and has a fire loss. The conlusion is that since the risk is fire it should be regulated by the part of the Insurance Act related to Fire Insurance
In KP Pacific Holdings v. Guardian Insurance, the insured also has a multiperil policy and suffers a fire loss but the conclusion is that the insured policy did not fit into a specific category and should be governed by the part of the Insurance Act that does not deal with fire.
So basically, should a multiperil policy be governed by the fire part of the insurance act of each province when the risk is fire or not?
What is your take on this?