Bernard c La Personnelle compagnie d’assurances, 2025 NBBR 146 (CanLII)
Reading Time: 4 minutes (approx.)
By: Sarah Richard
The New Brunswick’s Court of King’s Bench recently released a decision regarding a dispute over an insured’s duties under an homeowner’s insurance policy. The Plaintiff’s property in Saint-Arthur, New Brunswick, was damaged by a fire on May 10, 2023. At the time of the fire, the Plaintiff held an insurance policy with the Defendant, La Personnelle compagnie d’assurances.
Following the fire, the Plaintiff submitted a proof of loss claiming $600,000 for personal property and for the replacement value of the property. The Defendant disputed this proof of loss and requested further documentation, such as financial records and a more detailed version of the proof of loss. The Plaintiff argued she was unable to provide this to the Defendant without the report on the cause and origin of the fire or the damage estimates (which the Defendant refused to provide).
The issues arising in this case are the following:
- Is the Plaintiff required to provide a more detailed proof of loss to the Defendant?
- Does the additional condition no. 10 in the insurance policy (requiring an examination under oath), bind the insured, or does it violate section 127(1) of the Insurance Act?
- Does the Plaintiff’s refusal to provide a more detailed proof of loss or to submit to an examination under oath justify a suspension of the proceedings?
According to the Plaintiff, she met the policy’s requirements by submitting an initial proof of loss and was unable to provide further details due to the Defendants withholding of the cause and origin report and damage estimates. The Plaintiff argued that the condition in the policy which required an examination under oath violated the Insurance Act and she opposed the Defendant’s request to suspend the proceedings.
According to the Defendant, the proof of loss provided by the Plaintiff was insufficient and lacked a detailed inventory as required by statutory condition no. 6. The Defendant claims they had no obligation to provide the Plaintiff with the requested documents until after she complied with the policy’s condition requiring an examination under oath. The Defendant sought a suspension of the proceedings based on the Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the policy’s conditions.
The Court determined that the Plaintiff was unable to submit a more detailed proof of loss because the Defendant refused to disclose essential documents. Because the Plaintiff had already submitted an initial proof of loss based on the information she had, the Court held that she had met the requirements of statutory condition no. 6. The Defendant could not claim that the Plaintiff was not compliant when their allegations were caused by their own actions.
The Court ruled that the condition requiring the insured to undergo an examination under oath and to produce documents for review did not violate section 127(1) of the Insurance Act. It found that this condition constituted an additional obligation that neither altered nor undermined the statutory conditions.
The Court denied the Defendant’s request to suspend the proceedings, concluding that the remedy was disproportionate and unjustified. It held that the Defendant had failed to show either irreparable harm or a serious issue to be tried. The Court concluded by stating that the Plaintiff’s refusal to be examined under oath was due to her belief that the condition was invalid.
