2018 QCCQ 4748, 2018 QCCQ 4748

Amso c. Compagnie mutuelle d'assurances Wawanesa 2018 QCCQ 4748 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF LAVAL TOWN OF LAVAL No: 540-32-700145-178 DATE: May 31, 2018 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PATRICK CHOQUETTE, J.Q.C. ______________________________________________________________________ Julian AMSO Plaintiff v.

LA COMPAGNIE MUTUELLE D’ASSURANCE WAWANESA Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Julian Amso seeks to recover the sum of $15,000.00 from his insurer La Compagnie Mutuelle d’Assurance Wawanesa (Wawanesa) for the value of stolen goods and moral damages. Wawanesa rejected his claim on the basis that it is exaggerated and of improbable declarations. QUESTIONS IN DISPUTE

A) Does Julian Amso have a valid insurance claim?

B) Did Julian Amso make deceitful representations to Wawanesa wich would cause the forfeiture of his right to the indemnity otherwise payable under the insurance policy? If not, what is the value of the insurance indemnity? [ 2 ] Julian Amso is a citizen of the world. Swedish born, he obtained a Master’s Degree in Software Engineering at the Royal Institute of Technology in Sweden. [ 3 ] He lived in Syria and visited many countries.

He worked in England until July 2014 in the IT department of the Barclays Bank, earning over $250,000 per year. [ 4 ] In the summer of 2014, Julian Amso applied for Canadian permanent residency and moved to Laval in the end of the summer 2015. [ 5 ] He rents, on a monthly bases, a modest apartment equipped with minimal furniture while working on a project of start-up company in software development. [ 6 ] Julian Amso is a frequent traveller to Oman, Dubai, the United States of America and also has a side business of selling jewellery. [ 7 ] In October of 2015, while eating in a fast food restaurant in Laval, he is in day light, victim of thieves who have stolen his laptop. [ 8 ] His loss was covered by the insurance but Mr.

Amso is afraid that the thieves may have had access to personal and other important information contained therein. [ 9 ] Misfortune strikes again on May 16, 2016. [ 10 ] Coming back in the evening from a meeting with a friend in Montreal, he finds the door of his apartment opened and he soon realises that a burglar forced the lock of the entry door and stole certain items such as jewellery, watches, computer, perfumes, banking cards from a UK Bank and the key to a safety deposit box. [ 11 ] Mr.

Amso is preoccupied with his personal safety and he verifies with a neighbour if he had noticed anything suspicious on that evening. [ 12 ] Mr. Amso called the Laval Police Department at 23:08. The policer officer only came the following morning to take his statement.

[ 13 ] After having insured his personal safety, Mr. Amso notifies his bank in UK and monitors the transaction on his stolen cards. [ 14 ] Mr. Amso is also worried with possibility of identity theft and that, there could be a link between those who stole his computer in October and this burglary. [ 15 ] In the morning of May 17, 2016, Mr. Amso meets with policer officer Valérie Laverdure of the Laval Police Department. She opens a report card and makes the first round with Mr. Amso for a preliminary assessment of what items may have been stolen. [ 16 ] Mrs.

Laverdure prepares a report but does not take a declaration from Mr. Amso.

In her report, police officer Laverdure states that : « Objets volés : montre Oméga valeur de 2 500 $, plusieurs parfums de marque Dolche Gabana, carte de crédit d’une banque de Londres mais transactions faites ici après le vol, paire de souliers de sport, clé d’un coffre de sûreté bancaire de la RBC, possibilité de caméras où ont été faites les transactions et le suspect a vole la taie d’oreiller pour transporter les effets… Le plaignant va faire demarche avec sa banque de Londres et m’envoyer par email sa liste d’effets volés et relever les transactions bancaires de sa carte de credit. » [ 17 ] Mr.

Amso is aware that he has to provide a list of the items stolen, but this is not his priority at the time. [ 18 ] He is proactive in the police investigation and provides officer Laverdure with the banking transactions recorded on his cards suggesting that they move ahead quickly to retrieve the recordings from the surveillance camera where his credit card was used in order to identify the thieves. [ 19 ] Mr. Amso also notifies his insurer Wawanesa about the event; he meets with Wawanesa’s representative Samuel Charbonneau Guénette on the May 20, at the apartment. [ 20 ] Mr.

Charbonneau Guénette is taking pictures, asking questions and prepares a declaration summarizing the events. The statement provides namely that : « They stole a suitcase, my wallet, ASUS computer, a watch, shoes, cameras, and cufflinks. (…) I will send you a list with all the missing items (…). » [1] [ 21 ] Approximately ten days later, Mr. Charbonneau Guénette receives the detailed claim of Julian Amso and was surprised to see that it amounts to more than $35,000.00. He recommends that the file be referred to the firm of Laguë Vary Verreault , claim adjustors, for a full investigation. [ 22 ] Mr.

Yvan Croteau of Laguë Vary Verreault steps into the file in the first week of June 2016. He received the police report and found discrepancies between the evaluation of $4,000.00 made by police officer Laverdure and the detailed claim of Mr. Amso of $35,000.00 as well as the fact that all those items in the list could not have been carried in a pillow case. [ 23 ] Mr. Croteau tries to

schedule an appointment with Mr. Amso but the latter is not available, traveling outside of the country until the end of July 2016. [ 24 ] The meeting occurs on July 29, 2016, at the apartment. [ 25 ] Mr. Croteau is befuddled that the insured is living in a modestly furnished small apartment while claiming $35,000.00 worth of luxury items. [ 26 ] In his opinion, the apartment is only a « pied à terre ». Given that there are so few, furniture it should not have taken him that long for Mr. Amso to notice the stolen items and prepare a list. [ 27 ] Mr.

Croteau is sceptical concerning the theft of a watch worth $12,000.00 US that is not part of the original declaration. Most of the items in the list do not correspond to what Mr. Croteau perceives as being Mr. Amso life’s style. [ 28 ] For instance, why would Mr. Amso claim for the theft of Ugo Boss suits and luxury cufflinks as he doesn’t need to dress in that manner? [ 29 ] By viewing the detailed list, Mr. Croteau sees many red flags raising and is not satisfied by the information provided by Mr. Amso in terms of proofs of purchase or proof of possession of these items. [ 30 ] Mr.

Croteau orders a full credit report, meets with the owner of the building to obtain a copy of the lease which he didn’t get and requests Mr. Amso to prove his earnings in UK that will justify that he had the means to buy the items in the list in the various locations such as Oman, Dubai, Colombia, United Kingdoms. [ 31 ] As the investigation progresses, Mr. Amso gets the feeling that Wawanesa is suspicious that he could have been involved in the theft. He reminds Wawanesa that he is the victim, not the opposite. [ 32 ] Julian Amso provides Mr.

Croteau with his answers which are met with a new series of questions. [ 33 ] This attitude by Wawanesa seems to be fuelled by the fact that Mr. Amso is not able to provide proof of ownership or of possession for more than 13 out of 48 items in the list. [ 34 ] On August 5, 2016, Mr. Amso takes exception of a long inquisitory email from Mr. Croteau; he answers back on August 6,

2016 [2] : « Let me remind that I am the victim of crime here, but your approach so far have been trying to make me look as if I am a criminal. You actually accused me of being involved in the theft by stating that you are unsure what the relationship is between me and the criminal(

s) using my stolen credit cards, there is a voice recording of it. You should in this case refer your observations and comments to the police for further investigation. I will actually raise the issue with Wawanesa, because you are not in a position to accuse any Wawanesa clients for being involve in crimes which you did in my case. I must remind you that I have already answered multiple questions you stated here, I will answer these in written format and it will be the last time. I will not keep answering questions which have the style of direct/indirect accusations.

After this email, any observation or additional you will have need to go through the police, because this type of communication is not something I need to put up with or have the time to do. Let me answer your questions once for all because I have already answered many of these questions during or last conversation. » [ 35 ] For example, Mr. Croteau states : « In the police report, it is indicated that the mode of transportation for the stolen goods was a pillowcase.

This corresponds, according to the police officer, to the dimension of the bag that was required to transport the goods which your declared stolen on the time of the theft. The police officer explained to us that there has been several thefts in your area, several of which seem to have the same «modus operenti». The thief takes possession of the goods using a simple pillowcase for transportation. » [ 36 ] Mr. Amso replies : « Once again, you are building an assumption on a case where you assume that whatever this police report you are referring which I have not seen , is the final list.

Again, you are trying to make me look as unreliable and conflicting. I am not police detective and I have no idea, who the thieves are, what was there plan was and how they escaped. » (Spelling not corrected and underscore added ) [ 37 ] On October 11, 2016, Mr. Croteau sends his report to Wawanesa recommending that Mr. Amso’s claim be denied. The report is 30 pages long with 35 annexes. [ 38 ] On October 19, 2016, Mr. Amso is put to a statutory examination by the attorneys for Wawanesa. Wawanesa’s attorneys is requesting details about the date of purchase and location for the items in the list provided by Mr.

Amso, but he is not allowed to have a copy of the list to review or to avoid contradictions. [ 39 ] Mr. Amso repeats on many occasion during the examination that he does not wish to give contradictory evidence and he requires the list to answer [3] : « A. I have a lot of things. I just don’t want to give – I had a list and I don’t have it with me. I don’t want to give contradictory answers. So I just tell you I don’t remember. » [ 40 ] On numerous other occasions, Mr. Amso requests to be provided with the list. He explains again [4] : « A. Because a lot of stuff is from my own memory.

Some stuff is from the receipt; some stuff are from pictures; some stuff are from email. So it’s not everything I – I try to remember I wrote down, and I don’t want to be in a legal situation where I just gave oath and I give you wrong information. So I will tell you I don’t remember. » [ 41 ] And then, Wawanesa’s attorney puts an end to the examination in the following circumstances [5] : « Q. If I will verify the information, I have to ask you questions. A. Yes. If I have the list with me, I could —- Q. I don’t want you to read the list for me. A. Okay. (…) A.

So, I’m not going to play the game where you’re going to make me look as a liar. If I don’t remember, it’s contradictory, I’m going to tell you I don’t remember. Q. Okay. So we’ll stop the examination right now. » [ 42 ] On January 9, 2017, Wawanesa’s attorney recommends that the claim be denied. [ 43 ] The recommendation of the attorney states that Julian Amso refuses to collaborate with Yvan Croteau and denigrated the work of the police officer. [6]

[ 44 ] She also states that Mr. Amso refuses to collaborate during the statutory examination for which she had to put an end to. [ 45 ] She concludes : « Compte tenu que le mode de vie observé par votre expert en sinistre (ameublement de l’appartement), ne reflétait pas les goûts luxueux des biens réclamés, nous sommes d’avis que la preuve de ses revenus pour attester de ses moyens financiers à acquérir de tels biens était importante, voire même déterminante.

Considérant ce qui précède, nous sommes d’avis que vous êtes justifiés de nier la réclamation puisque la bonne foi de l’assuré est mise en doute et qu’il n’a pas fait la preuve de sa réclamation. À la lumière de l’ensemble des faits, il semble que l’assuré a fait des déclarations mensongères en exagérant sa réclamation. » [ 46 ] On January 12, 2017, Mr.

Amso is formally notified by bailiff that his claim has been disallowed. [ 47 ] Wawanesa’s position is that : « All the elements revealed by our client’s investigation and by your statutory examination are to the effect that wrongful, contradictory and or improbable declarations were made relating to the list of stolen items, which is exaggerated. In fact, you did not prove you were the owner and you had the possession of the items you claimed. (…) » [7] [ 48 ] On January 15, 2017, Mr.

Amso filed his demand before the small claims Division of the Cour du Québec seeking damages in the amount of $15,000.00 composed of $10,000.00 for the value of the stolen items and $5,000.00 in moral damages. [ 49 ] In support of his claim for moral damages, Mr.

Amso seeks compensation for: • Intrusion of privacy including photographing the interior of his apartment; • Excessive email correspondence about topics already discussed and explained; • Perceived intentional delay in processing the case; • Accusation of not cooperating with the police with their investigation; • Accusation of being involved in the home theft crime by implying a possible relationship with the individuals suspected in the theft; • Accusation of providing wrongful, contradictory and/or improbable declarations; • Intimidation tactics by using a third party investigator and law firm and ‘’building an opinion case’’ against Julian Amso. »

ANALYSIS [ 50 ] Mr. Amso is a citizen of the world with definite taste for luxury items. He has an unorthodox life style. He travels frequently to many countries and has a ‘’pied-à-terre’’ modestly furnished in a dwelling of Laval. [ 51 ] He is IT specialist working on a start-up company after having held a respectable position in the IT department of a United Kingdom Bank. [ 52 ] Shortly upon arrival in Canada, his laptop was stolen.

Eight months afterwards, his apartment in Laval was visited by a burglar and apparently most of his valuable items disappeared. [ 53 ] All this made him suspicious in the eyes of Wawanesa. [ 54 ] Moreover, Mr. Amso is not familiar with the North American and Canadian ways and the legal process. This is a case where perception got in the way of both parties evaluation. [ 55 ] Victim of a second theft in a few months, Mr.

Amso is afraid that ‘’someone was after him’’. [ 56 ] He was more concerned about his safety and personal information and possibility of identity theft than preparing a list of stolen goods. [ 57 ] Preparing a list of items for the insurance was not his priority. [ 58 ] When he met with police officer Laverdure on May 17, he identified a few generic categories of stolen items but he did not sign a written statement.

He had no control over what police officer Laverdure wrote in her report and he did not receive copy thereof before the legal proceedings in this matter were launched. [ 59 ] In this Court’s opinion, the

summary evaluation of $4,000.00 may not be attributed to Mr. Amso and he is not bound by a declaration which he did not prepare nor signed. [ 60 ] When the list of stolen items was provided thereafter, there were far too many red flags in the opinion of the insurer, to accept the claim without a full investigation.

[ 61 ] Mr. Amso already under the impression that the thieves may come back, installed a security system to his dwelling, obviously not to protect just a few furniture items in the apartment. [ 62 ] The fact that Mr. Amso has a safety deposit box at the RBC is also a clear indication that he owned luxury items such as precious watches and jewellery. [ 63 ] Mr.

Amso quickly became insulted when he felt his status had changed from victim to that of a suspect. [ 64 ] Viewed under his perspective, he passed through four levels of investigation over several months and offered his collaboration up to the end of the third level, upset with the way he was treated by Wawanesa’s representatives and external consultants. [ 65 ] Julian Amso has the burden to establish that the items in his claim have been stolen and that at the time of the theft that he was insured with Wawanesa. [ 66 ] Although, there has been some questions raised by the insurer whether or not Mr.

Amso had any participation with the events, there is no proof of any involvement by Mr. Amso. [ 67 ] To the contrary, Mr. Amso was proactive in the police investigation to identify the person using his banking cards. The Court dismisses the idea as Wawanesa would suggest that Mr. Amso was pushing for the police investigation to make sure that no link could made with him personally before providing his list of stolen items; this is pure speculation. [ 68 ] Second, Mr.

Amso has a valid insurance policy with Wawanesa for limit of $15,000.00 and a deductible of $500.00. [ 69 ] There are also certain limits to different categories such as $5,000.00 for jewellery. [ 70 ] This being proven, it now falls upon the shoulders of Wawanesa to establish by balance of probabilities the deceitful representations of Mr. Amso within the meaning of

article 2472 C.c.Q . [ 71 ] According to established jurisprudence, not every inaccurate statement by an insured constitutes a deceitful representation within the meaning of said article. The insurer has the burden to prove that inaccurate statement was made in bad faith with the intention of deceiving the insurer in order to gain an advantage. [8] [ 72 ] The Courts have also decided that a mere misstatement or error in good faith does not constitute in law a deceitful representation within the meaning of

article 2472 C.c.Q. which is predicated on an intention of the insured to deliberately trick or deceive the insurer. [9] [ 73 ] Furthermore, the Courts have decided that the mere lack of precision of language in no way demonstrates an intention to deceive under

article 2472 C.c.Q. [10] [ 74 ] Finally, good faith is always presumed (

article 2805 C.c.Q. ). [ 75 ] After careful review of the evidence, the Court is in the opinion that Mr. Amso did not make deceitful representations within the meaning of

article 2472 C.c.Q. [ 76 ] The report by police officer Laverdure may not be used as a statement made by Julian Amso given that he did not sign or read it after long after the proceedings where instituted. [ 77 ] The initial assessment of value at $4,000.00 cannot be proven to have been declared by Mr. Amso and the police officer’s testimony to that effect is not conclusive. [ 78 ] Furthermore, police officer Laverdure suggestion that the thieves operated with the same modus operandi used in other thefts in the neighborhood by using a pillow case is not a conclusion suggested by Mr.

Amso and does not preclude him from assessing the situation differently. [ 79 ] The fact that a bigger suit case is reported stolen by Julian Amso is more consistent with the number of items stolen, including suits and shoes all which would not fit in a pillow case. [ 80 ] Julian Amso denies having valued the stolen goods at $4,000.00.

He knows the insurance coverage is limited to $15,000.00 and that he would not recover any value in excess thereof. [ 81 ] The existence of a safety deposit box is coherent with the fact that he owns valuable items and possibly watches and jewels consistent with his side business. [ 82 ] His purchase of an alarm system installed in the dwelling after the theft is certainly not to protect the fridge and stove and is also consistent with him having the habit of buying luxury items. [ 83 ] Requesting Julian Amso to prove his earnings in the United Kingdom is unnecessary especially considering that Mr.

Croteau himself considered that it was plausible that he was living in Laval from his past earnings and savings. But that is a ground upon which the insurer based his decision to deny coverage. [ 84 ] In Court, Mr. Amso provided copy of his income tax return filled in the United Kingdom showing earnings of almost $200,000.00 sterling pounds (tax return 2015 P-58); Wawanesa suggested that it may be a forged document just taken from a form on the Internet. This is again, pure speculation. [ 85 ] To the contrary, his proof of income supports his life style. Furthermore, Mr.

Croteau does not challenges that Julian Amso travels intensively and has been in locations such as Oman and Dubai [11] , nor the fact that he obtained a Master’s Degree in Software

Engineering at the Royal Institute of Technology in Sweden. [ 86 ] Wawanesa ran a credit check on Mr. Amso; nothing irregular was reported and Mr. Amso has a good credit record (P-57). However, Wawanesa used it to suggest that Mr. Amso made credit applications in 2014 in Canada, which is incompatible with him moving in the country in 2015.

It falls very short of proving anything relevant to Wawanesa’s position. [ 87 ] It is not unusual for an insured not to be able to satisfy the insurer of ownership or possession of certain items and for the latter to partially decline the claim; fraud is not a necessary consequence thereof. It must be proven. [ 88 ] It is therefore important to review the principal elements that have paved the grounds to Wawanesa’s refusal.

More particularly, the letter from Wawanesa’s attorney of January 9, 2017, states that : « Avant de répondre à votre assuré, nous souhaitons vous transmettre notre rapport complet afin d’informer l’assuré de notre position finale en même temps que nous répondrons au courriel transmis à l’ombudsman . Comme vous le savez, il s’agit d’une réclamation qui est passée de 4 000 $ selon la plainte de vol au service de police de la Ville de Laval à 35 000 $ . Lorsqu’il nous a présenté sa réclamation, le contrat d’assurance prévoit une couverture d’assurance de 15 000 $ pour le contenu.

Cette réclamation met en lumière certains biens onéreux et luxueux réclamés par l’assuré. Il n’a pas transmis de preuves d’achat ou de possession convaincantes pour la plupart des biens réclamés et il a refusé de collaborer avec l’expert en sinistre, Monsieur Yvan Croteau du cabinet d’expertise en règlement des sinistres Laguë Vary & Associés. Il a aussi dénigré le travail des policiers, tel qu’il appert des échanges de courriels avec l’agente Valérie Laverdure.

Nous vous rappelons qu’il a également refusé de collaborer avec le soussigné lors de l’interrogatoire statutaire ce qui a mis fin prématurément audit interrogatoire. (…) Compte tenu que le mode de vie observé par votre expert en sinistre (ameublement de l’appartement) ne reflétait pas les goûts luxueux des biens réclamés, nous sommes d’avis que la prevue de ses revenus pourrait attester de ses moyens financiers à acquérir de tels biens est importante voire même déterminante.

Considérant ce qui précède, nous sommes d’avis que vous êtes justifiés de nier la réclamation puisque la bonne foi de l’assuré est mise en doute et qu’il n’a pas fait la preuve de sa réclamation. À la lumière de l’ensemble des faits, il semble que l’assuré a fait des déclarations mensongères en exagérant sa reclamation. » (D-7) (Underscore added) [ 89 ] The Court disagrees with the assessment. The comparison between Mr. Amso’s declaration and the list of items stolen with the Laval Police report is not a contradiction as Mr.

Amso is not the author nor that he had knowledge of the contents of this police report. [ 90 ] The Court does not find that Mr. Amso did not collaborate with Mr. Croteau; he got offended when he felt he was now being treated as a suspect rather than a victim, but he nevertheless provided him with numerous information, documents and answered the many questions that were asked. [ 91 ] As with respect to the refusal to collaborate during the statutory examination and after carefully reading the transcript, the Court cannot blame Mr.

Amso; he was refused the right to refer to the list he had prepared to give precise answers and he justified many times that he did not want to give false or contradictory declarations. [ 92 ] The attorney’s conclusion is to the effect that Mr. Amso good faith is challenged and it seems that he may have exaggerated his claim. [ 93 ] This is not the onus that the insurer must satisfy. [ 94 ] Despite the many red flags and doubts, Wawanesa did not convince the Tribunal for dismissing Mr. Amso’s claim under grounds provided for

article 2472 of the Civil code of Quebec . [ 95 ] This case resembles the narrative of another matter involving Wawanesa where the Honourable Jeffrey Edwards, J.C.Q., dismissed this insurer’s position : « […] [34] Accordingly, Wawanesa has failed to establish that, upon making her claim, Ms. Fairfax made deceitful representations or false declarations. Therefore, this ground of defence also fails. [35] As soon as Wawanesa discovered that Ms. Fairfax had financial problems, its representatives appear to have concluded that she was necessarily in bad faith. Thereafter, Ms.

Fairfax’s personal lifestyle choices or any inconsistency in any statement, no matter how minor, slight, irrelevant or inadvertent, were considered by Wawanesa as proof that Ms. Fairfax was in bad faith and connected to the theft of her car. That position, based upon conjecture and speculation, is not valid or sustainable in fact or in law. Wawanesa did not appear to allow for the scenario that an insured could have financial problems and still have his or her car stolen, which is what the Court concludes transpired in the case of Ms.

Fairfax. » [12] [ 96 ] All the doubts and questions raised by Wawanesa do not weigh as conclusive evidences against Mr. Amso’s claim.

[ 97 ] It does not mean however that Mr. Amso is relieved of his own burden to establish proof of ownership or possession of the items that he claimed. In doing so, Mr. Croteau made his own assessment in his report and evaluated Mr. Amso’s claim in the amount of $9,461.70. [13] [ 98 ] The Court is satisfied with the values attributed by Yvan Croteau for the various items. In some cases, despite the fact that Mr Croteau may not be contented with the supporting evidence, the court believes Julian Amso provided through the investigation and during trial, satisfactory evidence the he owned the items in the list.

For example, Yvan Croteau is not satisfied with the evidence in support of ownership of a Canon Power Shot 95 camera and a Canon EOS 6500 camera but he obtained the original JPEG files of certain pictures that were taken from these instruments. [14] [ 99 ] Julian Amso also filed pictures taken from Oman and Dubai for example, where he purchased items in the list; the latitude and longitude indicated in the JPEG corresponds to that of these locations. [15] Owning Hugo Boss suits and cufflinks is plausible considering he worked at Barclays Bank in the United Kingdom. [ 100 ] Accordingly, Julian Amso is entitled to receive the sum of $9,461.70 minus the $500.00 deductible for an amount of $8,961.70. [ 101 ] Mr.

Amso also claims a sum of $5,000.00 in moral damages, stress and inconvenience for the reasons already stated above. [16] [ 102 ] However, Mr. Amso signed on July 26, 2016, a reservation of rights letter stating that : « (…) 2. The insurer does not currently have sufficient information to determine if the reported loss or event is deemed eligible under the terms of the Insurance Policy; 3.

The insurer intends to carry out the research, investigations or expertise that it deems necessary and appropriate with respect to both the event/lost and the requests arising from it, without prejudice to its rights, until all such actions have been completed . [17] [ 103 ] Mrs.

Amso had accepted to submit himself to the investigative process and the inconvenience he claims having suffered therefrom is not a damage he may recover under the law. [ 104 ] Wawanesa’s position is not, in the undersigned’s opinion, based on hard facts but perception and doubts, which were not unreasonable at the time they denied coverage. [ 105 ] After having heard Mr. Amso’s version and evaluating his credibility, the Court finds otherwise; this not imply however that Wawanesa’s conduct was faulty since it reached this conclusion based on the recommendations of its experts and professionals.

FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, THE COURT: GRANTS in part the demand. CONDEMNS La Compagnie Mutuelle d’Assurance Wawanesa to pay Julian Amso the sum of $8,961.70 with interests at the legal rateplus the additional indemnity provided for by

article 1619 of the Civil Code of Quebec as of October 5, 2016 (P-30), plus judicial costslimited to the sum of $200.00. __________________________________ PATRICK CHOQUETTE, J.Q.C. Date of hearing: February 26, 2018 [8] Savage c. Laurentienne générale (La), compagnie d’assurance inc., SOQUIJ AZ-96025035, [1996] R.R.A. 675; Morin c. AxaAssurances inc., 2007 QCCQ 14243, SOQUIJ AZ-50466669, J.E. 2008-248, [2008] R.R.A. 239; Tremblay c. Axa assurances inc., (C.Q.,1998-10-02), SOQUIJ AZ-50188317, Stevovic c. Compagnie d’assurances Wawanesa, SOQUIJ AZ-50284040, B.E. 2005BE-871, EYB2004-81354; Blier c.

Assurances générales des Caisses Desjardins inc., (QC CQ), SOQUIJ AZ-50280311, B.E.2005BE-850, [2004] R.L. 576; Kramer c. Sécurité (La), assurances générales inc., (C.Q., 2002-05-17), SOQUIJ AZ-50129859; Côté c.Cie d’assurance Guardian du Canada, (C.Q., 2001-12-11), SOQUIJ AZ-50115050. [9] Boiler Inspection and Insurance Company of Canada c. Moody Industries Inc., 2006 QCCA 887, J.E. 2006-1358, [2006] R.R.A.556, EYB 2006-107158; Flores c. Compagnie d’assurances Wawanesa inc., SOQUIJ AZ-00026506, B.E. 2000BE-1082; Côté c.Général accident, Cie d’assurance, SOQUIJ AZ-89025076, [1989] R.R.A. 1014; Hussein c.

Assurances générales des caissesDesjardins inc., (QC CQ), SOQUIJ AZ-50187636, REJB 2000-20227.