Parents who negligently supervise a child that injures someone with a motor vehicle may not be entitled to benefits under their home owner's insurance policy.
An Insurer was not required to defend or indemnify the parents of a youth involved in a motor vehicle accident where the Court held that the allegations of negligent supervision were derivative of the claims relating to the motor vehicle negligence claims and consequently were excluded from coverage by the "ownership, use or operation of any motorized vehicle" exclusion in the homeowners policy.
Here is the citation: Co-operators General Insurance Co. v. Murray [2007] O.J. No. 2329. Ontario Superior Court of Justice. J.R. MacKinnon J. June 13, 2007.
Here is a link to the decision.
This case was originally digest by Jonathan Meadows and edited by David Pilley.
The Insurer sought a Declaration that it was not required to defend or indemnify the Murrays in respect to an action brought against them by the Wilsons who were injured in a single motor vehicle accident in which the Murrays’ son, Ronald, was the driver. The allegations against the Murrays in the action were that they failed to discipline or supervise Ronald and failed to act as reasonable or prudent parents. The Insurer sought to deny coverage on the basis that the homeowners policy contained an exclusion for damage arising from ownership, use or operation of any motorized vehicle.
The Court reviewed the decision in Non-Marine Underwriters, Lloyds of London v. Scalera (2000), 1 S.C.R. 551 where the Supreme Court of Canada had held that a Court construing the Insurer's duty to defend must look beyond the labels used by the Plaintiff to determine the substance and true nature of the pleaded claim. Where the claim contains allegations of both negligence and an intentional tort, the Court must decide whether the harm alleged inflicted by the negligent conduct is derivative of that caused by the intentional conduct.
The claim will only be treated as "derivative" for the purpose of this analysis if it is an ostensibly separate claim which nonetheless is clearly inseparable from a claim of intentional tort. In this case, the Court held that the general allegations of failure to discipline and to exercise reasonable supervision over Ronald Murray were all referable to the use and operation by him of the vehicle. The allegations against the Murrays were not discreet causes of action such that they could stand alone. If the Wilsons established their claims against the Murrays but were unable to establish that the vehicle was used or operated in a negligent manner by Ronald at the time of the accident, they would not succeed in the action. Therefore, the supervision, discipline and parental responsibility claims were clearly derivative of the negligent driving claims.
In the result, the Court issued a Declaration that the Insurer was not required to defend nor indemnify the Murrays.
