2022 QCCQ 12920, 2022 QCCQ 12920

Boray c. La Personnelle, assurances générales inc. 2022 QCCQ 12920 COURT OF QUEBEC «Small Claims Division» CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTRÉAL "Civil Division" N° : 500-32-709448-197 DATE : November 14, 2022 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE DIANE QUENNEVILLE, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ JOHN BORAY Plaintiff c.

LA PERSONNELLE, ASSURANCES GÉNÉRALES Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Plaintiff claims from his insurer, the Defendant La Personnelle assurances générales Inc., the damages resulting from a flood in his basement, following Defendant's refusal to indemnify the claim. [ 2 ] The Defendant contests the Plaintiff's claim on the basis that no damage was caused to the electrical panel due to the flood. As for the window, it was not damaged and did not require that it be replaced.

THE CONTEXT [ 3 ] In January 2018, the main water supply burst, causing a flood in the Plaintiff's basement. [ 4 ] The Plaintiff states that the electrical panel was directly below the burst pipe, which corroded the wires and required that the panel be replaced. [ 5 ] The Plaintiff paid an electrician $4,426.54 [1] that he requests be reimbursed by the Defendant. [ 6 ] The Defendant retained the services of Denis Bourbonnais et Fils who in May 2018 provided a report to the Defendant [2] following the inspection at Plaintiff’s residence. [ 7 ] It concluded that there was no corrosion to the breakers, the wires or the panel. [ 8 ] Christopher Menabney, who at the time was employed by Denis Bourbonnais et Fils, inspected the electrical panel and confirms to the Court that it was not damaged by the flood. [ 9 ] In fact, this electrical panel was installed in 1982 and in 2018 it no longer conformed to code. [ 10 ] The cost paid by the Plaintiff to his electrician was to replace the existing panel and place it in an area not directly above a water source. [ 11 ] As for the window, the Plaintiff claims the sum of $1,432.38 to replace the window, which he alleges was damaged by the flood. [ 12 ] In June 2020, the Plaintiff replaced two windows, one in his basement for an amount of $809.10 plus tax, which he claims, plus $500 that he paid to a worker, who's name is unknown, to demolish a space on the back deck and rebuild it, according to a September 2020 invoice [3] . [ 13 ] Philippe Campeau, adjuster, did inspect the window in the Plaintiff’s basement and concluded that it had not been damaged by the water.

Once he cleaned the rails, the window opened without any effort. THE ANALYSIS [ 14 ] In accordance with articles 2803 and 2804 of the Civil Code of Québec , the Plaintiff had the burden of proving that his claim was justified under his insurance policy.

[ 15 ] Considering the evidence provided by the Defendant, the Plaintiff did not fulfill his burden of proof. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: DISMISSES Plaintiff's claim; WITH COSTS in the amount of $256 representing the judicial stamp of the contestation. ________________________ DIANE QUENNEVILLE, J.C.Q.