How have the words “subject to 75% co-insurance” been interpreted in a fire insurance policy?

Ontario, Canada

The following excerpt is from Eckardt v. Lancashire Insurance Co., 1900 CanLII 25 (ON CA):

In dealing with this case, I think—in view of the decision of this court in Wanless v. Lancashire Ins. Co. (1896), 23 A.R. 224—we must treat the co-insurance clause as a condition, and therefore as a variation of the statutory conditions to which all contracts of fire insurance are subject. Indeed by inserting it among the additional conditions the defendants have made it impossible for us to deal with it otherwise than as a condition. We cannot treat it as having any other place in the policy. I do not think any special weight is to be attached to the presence of the words “subject to 75% co-insurance” upon the face of the policy, especially having regard to their position. They cannot be looked upon as doing more than drawing attention to the condition, which had already been done by the statement previously made in the policy that the insurance was subject to the terms and conditions thereinafter mentioned. Nor do I think that it ought to be inferred that from seeing these words and reading the co-insurance clause or condition the plaintiffs were informed that the defendants were effecting insurances upon other terms and at other rates than those shewn in the policy.

Other Questions

Can an insurer deny coverage under a policy issued by a new insurer because the insurer was aware of a potential claim in an underlying action brought against the insureds? (Ontario, Canada)
If an insurance policy question is ambiguous and open to multiple interpretations and leads an applicant for insurance coverage to provide incorrect information, must the answer be resolved as against the insurer? (Ontario, Canada)
Can a fraudulent insurance claim result in no recovery for the insured under the applicable insurance policy? (Ontario, Canada)
In what circumstances will an arbitrator be bound to follow the interpretation of Arbitrator Starkman’s interpretation of the Interpretation of the Arbitrator's Interpretation in a dispute? (Ontario, Canada)
Can a clause in a policy that states that an insurer may deny coverage, such as s. 1.4 of the policy, be interpreted as "may" preclude coverage? (Ontario, Canada)
Is a purchaser of a life insurance policy entitled to the proceeds of the policy to his wife and children? (Ontario, Canada)
Is a personal injury insurer required to pay a plaintiff's legal fees and costs for the purposes of their insurance policy? (Ontario, Canada)
How has the court interpreted section 19(1)(a) of the Child Support Guidelines and interpreted the meaning of the word "intentionally" in relation to child support? (Ontario, Canada)
Is there any case law supporting the interpretation of coverage provisions in a private insurance policy? (Ontario, Canada)
Is an insurer's obligation to pay insurance monies to an insured a debt that can be garnished? (Ontario, Canada)

Alexi white

"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.