Eric Aucoin v. Insurance Company of Prince Edward Island & Blake A. Gardner, 2025 NBKB 151 (CanLII)
Reading Time: 3 minutes (approx.)
By: Sarah Richard
The case involved a Plaintiff who sought coverage under an all-perils automobile insurance policy after the RCMP seized his 2021 Ford Expedition Platinum due to a tampered VIN, indicating the vehicle was likely stolen. The Plaintiff claimed he purchased the vehicle in good faith, paying cash to an acquaintance, but had limited documentation to support the transaction.
The Defendant denied the claim, arguing the Plaintiff lacked valid ownership, an insurable interest, and that the loss was not covered under the policy. The Plaintiff applied for summary judgment, insisting the seizure was a covered loss and that he acted in good faith. The court considered four key issues.
Firstly, legal title: the court found no evidence that the seller had a voidable title of the vehicle. The seller could not transfer a better title than it possessed (principle of “nemo dat quod non habet”). The lack of documentation and the unusual circumstances of the transaction lead to the due diligence of the Plaintiff to be questioned.
Secondly, insurable interest: the court applied the principles from Kosmopoulos v. Constitution Insurance Co. 1987 CanLII 75 (SCC), [1987] 1 SCR 2 and Assaad v. Economical Mutual Insurance Group 2002 CarswellOnt 1980. While the factual expectancy test could establish insurable interest, public policy concerns, such as discouraging fraudulent transactions, limited its application. The Plaintiff’s good faith and due diligence were central to this determination, but the incomplete record precluded a definitive finding.
Thirdly, policy coverage: the court deferred analysis until title and interest were determined.
Finally, summary judgement: the court emphasized the importance of complete document disclosure pursuant to Rule 31 of the New Brunswick Rules of Court. The failure by the Plaintiff to provide an Affidavit of Documents prevented the Defendant from responding and hindered their ability to fairly address the issues.
The court found that there were genuine issues requiring a full trial and dismissed the Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.
