HomeOur Blog › Blog Input

Coverage

Dude, Where’s My Cargo?

 Jul 9, 2018 11:15 AM
by Tim Gillibrand

The matter of Rosen Express v. Northbridge is yet another case of stolen cargo for which Rosen sought coverage. The case underlines for insurers that courts will often take a broad approach to coverage and they must provide supporting evidence when alleging misrepresentation.

This case involved electronic goods which were ultimately destined for Best Buy in Quebec. Affidavit evidence supported that Greenway Carriers transported the goods to Rosen Express by leaving a Greenway trailer in Rosen’s yard. Rosen ultimately was tasked with delivering the trailer to Quebec.  Notably, the Greenway and Rosen properties were directly beside one another.

The insurer argued that there should be no coverage for two reasons. First, it argued the goods were not in Rosen’s custody and thus not covered by the policy. In support of this, the insurer argued that the goods remained in Greenway’s trailer and it was a Greenway employee who completed the police report. The court rejected these arguments as speculative and accepted Rosen’s evidence that it intended to transport the goods using the Greenway trailer. 

The court also found, based on the policy wording, that the cargo would be covered regardless of whether they were dropped off at the Rosen property. Greenway was found to be acting as Rosen’s agent and therefore the goods were considered to be in Rosen’s custody even if on the Greenway property.  

Second, the insurer argued that Rosen made a material misrepresentation when it applied for insurance because it failed to disclose that it would be transporting electronic goods.  There was a space on the application to specify the type(s) of electronic goods being transported, which was left blank. The application described the types of goods very generally, including “consumer goods”. In the application, Rosen provided evidence that electronics comprised 1 to 2% of its shipments.

Morgan J. rejected the insurer’s submission that there was a material misrepresentation. It was significant that the insurer did not provide any evidence to support that it was induced by the misrepresentation or that it would have treated the application differently.  The court differentiated the case from one where an insured transports something drastically more dangerous or expensive than that declared on the application (e.g. explosives or gold bullion). 

Although the court rejected the insurer’s coverage arguments, Rosen was not entitled to any compensation. There was a lack of evidence to support the value of the cargo as no claim had been made against Rosen. While there was some evidence on the bill of lading and post-loss amounts had been withheld from Rosen, the court was not satisfied that the cargo claim value could be determined with accuracy. Therefore, the court left for another day the issue as to whether the policy would respond to a cargo claim and the amount of same. 

See Rosen Express v. Northbridge General Insurance Co., 2018 ONSC 4017 (CanLII)


Tim Gillibrand has been practicing insurance litigation since 2012. He has dealt extensively with property-related claims, including subrogation and coverage matters. Read more ...

Coverage, Transportation  


  

 

 
Top of page