Supreme Court of Canada
Western Assurance Co. v Desgagnés, [1976] 1 S.C.R. 286
Date: 1974-12-19
The Western Assurance Company (Defendant) Appellant;
and
Jean-Paul Desgagnés (Plaintiff) Respondent.
1974: October 10; 1974: December 19.
Present: Martland, Ritchie, Pigeon, Beetz and de Grandpré JJ.
ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF QUEEN’S BENCH, APPEAL SIDE, PROVINCE OF QUEBEC
Insurance—Marine insurance of carrier—Liability clause where cargo carried on deck at shipper’s risk—Verbal contract between shipper and carrier—Carrier would have been liable in case of written contract placing cargo on deck at shipper’s risk—Insurer’s liability.
An award was made against respondent in its capacity of carrier, in proceedings instituted against it by the shipper, following a loss attributed to instability of the vessel resulting from placing an excessive load on deck as compared with cargo in the holds. The contract of carriage between the carrier and the shipper was a verbal one. Respondent, basing its action on a contract of marine insurance, sought to be indemnified by appellant. Appellant company refused, pointing out that the loss did not fall within the cover provided by the policy which excluded liability for any cargo on deck. The lower Courts ordered appellant to indemnify respondent. Hence the appeal to this Court.
Held: The appeal should be dismissed.
The insurance agreement stipulates that the insurer’s liability shall be limited to such as would exist if there were a bill of lading providing that cargo shall be at shipper’s risk if carried on deck. The expression “at shipper’s risk” does not preclude the carrier’s liability to the shipper for unseaworthiness of the vessel. The instability established in this case constituted unseaworthiness and the insurer must be held liable.
The appellant cannot escape liability on the ground that the respondent had at his disposal a bill of lading under which he could have successfully contested the shipper’s claim, a bill of lading precluding all recourse based on unseaworthiness. The policy did not impose such a bill of lading on the insured.
[Page 287]
Svenssons Travaruaktiebolag v. Cliffe Steamship Company, 41 LI. L. Rep. 262; [1932] 1 K.B. 490, referred to.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of Queen’s Bench, Appeal Side, Province of Quebec, affirming a judgment of the Superior Court. Appeal dismissed.
R.G. Chauvin, Q.C., for the defendant, appellant.
R. Gaudreault, for the plaintiff, respondent.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by
DE GRANDPRE J.—By its action, based on a contract of marine insurance, respondent is seeking to be indemnified by appellant (Western) for an award made against it in its capacity of carrier, in proceedings instituted by the shipper, Canada Steamship Lines Ltd. (C.S.L.). The decision in Canada Steamship Lines Ltd. v. Desgagnés is reported in [1967] 2 Ex. C.R. 234.
For purposes of the case at bar it suffices to note the following facts:
—the contract of carriage between Desgagnés and C.S.L. was a verbal one;
—this contract concerned 152 metal plates;
—the plates were loaded on the deck of the vessel Fort Carillon by C.S.L. employees;
—at about 8.55. p.m. on September 12, 1961, the vessel left Montreal for Lauzon and a few hours later, near Contrecœur, while moving in calm waters, it listed and 148 of the plates fell into the sea;
—the loss is attributable to instability of the vessel resulting from placing an excessive load on deck as compared with cargo in the holds.
On July 20, 1962, the insurer refused to indemnify its policy-holder, pointing out that:
We are satisfied that the loss is not one which would fall within the cover provided by our policy. As you are aware, the policy provides that cargo carried on deck is carried thereon at the shipper’s risk. We can find nothing in the present situation to obviate this part of the policy…
[Page 288]
In its written defence in respect of respondent’s action appellant insurer re-affirmed its position. The clause on which it relies is the following:
CARRIAGE OF CARGO
It is understood and agreed that liability hereunder shall be limited to such as would exist if there were a charter party, bill of lading or contract of affreightment containing
(a) A provision that shipments are subject either to the Harter Act 1893 or to the (U.S.A.) Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1936 if from a United States port, or to the (Canadian) Water Carriage of Goods Act 1936 if from a Canadian port, and also to the minimum valuations per package of freight unit and to all the exemptions from liability permitted by said Acts;
(b) A negligence general average clause reading: “In the event of accident, danger, damage, or disaster before or after commencement of the voyage, resulting from any cause whatsoever, whether due to negligence or not, for which, or for the consequences of which, the shipowner is not responsible, by statute or contract or otherwise, the shippers, consignees or owners of the cargo shall contribute with the shipowner in general average to the payment of any sacrifices, losses or expenses of a general average nature that may be made or incurred and shall pay salvage and special charges incurred in respect of the cargo”;
(c) A provision that cargo shall be at shipper’s risk if carried on deck;
(d) A clause providing that the Assured and the Vessel named herein shall have the benefit of all statutory limitations and exemptions from liability permitted to vessel owners;
(e) A Liberties Clause commonly used in the trade in which the Vessel is engaged;
(f) Such clauses, if any, as are required by law to be stated therein;
It is this clause which was examined by the Superior Court and the Court of Appeal in the light of the facts contained in admissions signed by the parties, documents which need not be reproduced for the purposes of this appeal. Their examination led the Quebec Courts to find in favour of respondent, and I should say at once that I concur
[Page 289]
in that conclusion, though I am unable to subscribe to several of the reasons stated by the Superior Court and the Court of Appeal.
The only clause of the agreement that can be relied on by the insurer is para. (c), which concerns carriage on deck. It elected to limit its liability by stipulating what any contract of carriage would be deemed to contain, and in that stipulation it indicated specifically, in para. (c), what the contract of carriage would be deemed to contain with respect to goods on deck. It therefore cannot maintain that para. (a) imposes a wider provision, for the same kind of carriage, than this specific clause.
The liability of the insurer is thus limited to certain specific cases. The policyholder and his clients may make whatever legal agreements they please, but as between the policyholder and the insurer, the liability of the latter must be examined in the light of what the policyholder’s position would have been if he had issued the document prescribed by the aforementioned clause. In the case at bar, therefore, the only problem for solution is the following: would Desgagnés have been liable to C.S.L. in the circumstances of the incident if a written contract of carriage had stipulated that the metal plates were to be carried on deck, and at the risk of the shipper? I have already indicated that this question must be answered in the affirmative. Appellant argued that it certainly should not be required to indemnify Desgagnés, because the latter had at his disposal a bill of lading form containing the following stipulation:
[TRANSLATION] CARGO ON DECK: The goods covered by this bill of lading may be stowed on or under the deck at the discretion of the carrier; and when they are stowed on deck they shall, by virtue of this provision, be deemed to be stated as being so stowed, even without any specific statement to this effect on the face of the bill of lading. With respect to goods stowed on deck, the carrier assumes no liability for any loss, damage or delay resulting from any cause whatever, including negligence or unseaworthiness at departure or at any time during the voyage.
[Page 290]
In my view the liability of Western should not be examined in light of a bill of lading containing a general stipulation excluding liability for any cargo on deck, “including negligence or unseaworthiness”. That was not the insurance agreement between the parties. The agreement was much more limited in scope: by its terms, the insurer is liable to its policyholder whenever the latter would himself have been liable to the shipper if the contract of carriage had contained a stipulation that cargo on deck was carried at the risk of the shipper.
Put otherwise, the insurer never said to the policyholder that the insurance contract would not indemnify him in any event of damage to cargo carried on deck. On the contrary, the text indicates that the said compensation would be paid for all damages not excluded by a bill of lading “at shipper’s risk”.
This expression has a well-defined meaning, and it does not preclude the carrier’s liability to the shipper for unseaworthiness of the vessel. On this point we need only refer to the opinion of Lord Wright in Svenssons Travaruaktiebolag v. Cliffe Steamship Company, wherein he said the following at p. 498:
It is quite clear, in my judgment, on the authorities as they now stand, that the words ‘at charterers’ risk’, standing alone and apart from any other exception in the charterparty, do not excuse the shipowner in the case of a loss due to the breach of warranty of seaworthiness. That, if it needed authority, is clearly laid down by the Court of Appeal in The Galileo [1914] P. 9, and I do not find any reason to qualify that conclusion by anything that I find in the decision of the same case in the House of Lords, [1915] A.C. 199.
The finding in Galileo, [1914] P. 9 was as follows:
that the defendants were liable to make good to the plaintiffs the loss they had sustained by the sinking of the lighter through unseaworthiness, the question being one of the construction of the through bill of lading, and the words ‘at shipper’s risk’ referred to other risks than
[Page 291]
that of a breach of the fundamental obligation of the shipowner in respect of seaworthiness.
If the insurer had wanted to go beyond this, it could have included in its insurance contract the stipulation it wished to see inserted in all contracts of carriage, as it did in para. (b) of the aforementioned clause. However, that is not the case, and the insurer’s liability must be decided in the light of the agreement contained in the policy.
For all these reasons I would concur in the conclusion of the Court of Appeal, and affirm the award made against appellant, the whole with costs.
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Solicitors for the defendant, appellant: Chauvin & Dion, Montreal.
Solicitors for the plaintiff, respondent: Langlois, Drouin & Laflamme, Quebec.
Email this Content