2015 QCCQ 11618, 2015 QCCQ 11618

Domagala c. Desjardins General Insurance 2015 QCCQ 11618 COUR DU QUÉBEC « Division des petites créances » CANADA PROVINCE DE QUÉBEC DISTRICT DE MONTRÉAL « Chambre civile » N° : 500-32-141948-143 DATE : 16 novembre 2015 ______________________________________________________________________ SOUS LA PRÉSIDENCE DE L’HONORABLE DANIEL DORTÉLUS ______________________________________________________________________ Paul domagala Demandeur c.

DESJARDINS GENERAL INSURANCE Défenderesse ______________________________________________________________________ JUGEMENT ______________________________________________________________________ 1.

LE LITIGE [ 1 ] Le demandeur poursuit la défenderesse, Desjardins General Assurance (« Desjardins ») pour la somme de 4 925 $ représentant la valeur d’un véhicule Ford Focus assuré auprès de Desjardins, qui a été endommagé par le feu et déclaré perte totale, le 26 octobre 2013. [ 2 ] Desjardins conteste la réclamation et soulève que le véhicule du demandeur n’était pas couvert pour le sinistre « incendie ». [ 3 ] La contestation est fondée pour les motifs exprimés plus loin, la demande doit être rejetée. 2.

LES FAITS PERTINENTS [ 4 ] Le demandeur détient, en novembre 2012, une police d’assurance auprès de Desjardins. [ 5 ] La police d’assurance, produite en preuve (pièce P-3 A1), indique que le véhicule Ford Focus dispose d’une couverture d’un million de dollars (1 000 000 $) pour responsabilité civile. [ 6 ] Dans la

section B qui concerne les pertes et dommages au véhicule assuré, pour le véhicule Ford Focus, il indiqué que les couvertures sont exclues pour : - Subsec. 1 : All perils; - Subsec. 2 : Collision or upset; - Subsec. 3 : Comprehensive (excluding collision or upset); - Subsec. 4 : Specified perils. [ 7 ] La couverture pour l’incendie tombe sous la

section B, sous-section 3, qui indique clairement que la prime de 181 $ que le demandeur paie pour assurer le véhicule Ford Focus exclut cette couverture. [ 8 ] Les trois autres véhicules du demandeur, qui sont inscrits sur la même police, disposent d’une couverture qui inclut la couverture pour incendie, qui tombe sous la rubrique « comprehensive ». [ 9 ] Le demandeur affirme avoir demandé une couverture pour le feu pour ses quatre (4) véhicules. [ 10 ] Il croyait, à la lecture de la police, qu’il reçoit en novembre 2012, que le véhicule For Focus disposait d’une telle couverture. [ 11 ] Il attire l’attention du Tribunal à la page 3 de 3 de la police, sur laquelle il est indiqué « 4 veh.

QEF No 40 Fire deductible endorsement 50 $ included ». [ 12 ] Il suggère que cette inscription lui aurait laissé croire que les 4 véhicules étaient couverts pour le feu/incendie. [ 13 ] La position du demandeur, au soutien de sa réclamation, est détaillée dans sa demande comme suit :

« On October 2012 Plaintiff requested from Defendant an automobile insurance with fire coverage included for 4 Plaintiff's cars and one scooter. On October 21, 2012 Defendant sent to Plaintiff Automobile Insurance Policy, which turned out to be incomplete and did not mention clearly that two of the Plaintiffs cars did not have fire incident coverage. On October 26, 2013, one of the Plaintiff's cars, Ford Focus, ignited while driving and caught on fire, creating total damage beyond repair.

Defendant was promptly advised by Plaintiff about fire incident but Defendant refused to pay for total car damages, and to Plaintiffs unexpected surprise, informed Plaintiff that Defendant did not insured Plaintiff's car for fire coverage. Plaintiff verified all previous correspondence from Defendant and did NOT find any proofs or evidence that Defendant advised Plaintiff that only two cars had fire coverage and the other two cars (including Ford Focus) didn't.

On Nov. 21, 2013 Plaintiff finally received missing documents which showed to Plaintiff, that two of his cars (including Ford Focus) were not covered for fire incidents. If Plaintiff would have known that all of his cars did not have fire coverage, Plaintiff would have requested this coverage.

Because Plaintiff doesn't have experience with car insurance business, and since Plaintiff requested fire coverage on all of his cars, and because Defendant failed to advise Plaintiff about the very important fact that two of his cars ( including Ford Focus) did not include fire coverage, and Defendant neglected to send complete Automobile Insurance Policy with "Insurance Agreement" that should be included, which explains

Section B and Subsection 3 and 4 of the insurance coverage, therefore, Plaintiff demands that he be reimbursed for financial damages that he and his family sustained due to total loss of the Car (Ford Focus) , as well as Defendant's NEGLIGENCE to send important documents and LACK of CLARITY in documents which were sent to Plaintiff.

Although given formal notice by registered letter dated January 25, 2014, which explains in details all the Facts, Conclusion and Demand, the Defendant has not paid or refuses to pay. » [ 14 ] Durant son témoignage devant cette Cour, le demandeur relate essentiellement les mêmes éléments contenus dans la correspondance, datée du 4 novembre 2013, adressée à Desjardins, dans laquelle il écrit : « Dear Ms.

Lord, In response to our telephone conversation on Nov. 4, 2013, I am sending you by FAX all 8 pages of my car insurance policy, which I received from your company by mail and which is effective from November 13, 2012 to November 13, 2013. As I originally requested from Desjardins, this policy should cover my 2001 Ford Focus SE, for one-way insurance with fire included.

I also noticed on page 3 of 3 of my Desjardins Automobile Insurance Policy in the Endorsements section, that there is a statement which says: "Fire Deductible Endorsement", which in my understanding of English, fire coverage on my vehicles is included with a deductible of $250, and for this I paid extra $50. My clear understanding was that all of my cars were insured for fire. I did not see and I do not see on page 1 of 3 or page 2 of 3, on my Desjardins Automobile Insurance Policy, that my fire insurance on my cars is not included.

However, I noticed word "FIRE" in the sentence which says: "Deductible per occurrence except loss or damage by fire or lighting. "This sentence only refers to deductible. On all of the pages that your insurance company send to me, there is no sentence which clearly states that: FIRE COVERAGE IS NOT INCLUDED. It was just recently that I learned from Mr.

Alexandre Roussel, Desjardins insurance Adjuster, after my Ford Focus was burned down in a fire, that my car did not have fire insurance, and that this information was apparently on some kind of additional pages which I never received from Desjardins insurance, and which was supposed to be sent to me, but it was not. Apparently these extra pages were supposed to refer to

section of the tables for Comprehensive and Specified Perils. The problem is that the fire exclusion on your insurance policy was NOT clearly specified or stated to me verbally or in writing when I requested insurance from your company, or before my car was involved in a fire accident, which was not created by me or by my daughter who was driving my car at this time. Therefore, due to the fact that the fire accident was not our fault and was not created by us, we demand that our Ford Focus will be covered by our Desjardins insurance.

If I would have known that your Desjardins one way car insurance does not cover my cars for fire, I would have paid pay extra for this insurance. This is first time in my life that I am experiencing this kind of situation. My previous insurance policy, in spite of it being one way, did cover my Ford Focus for accidents and fire. Your policy is very confusing to me because even for two way insured cars such as my KIA or Mercedes, it does NOT indicate at all, that these cars have also fire coverage. During the past 3 years I spent more than $6,000.00 to refurbish this car with brand new parts.

Taking in to consideration that my Ford Focus SE station wagon with ZTECH engine, without any refurbishing would sell on the market for $3,000.00, I would like to ask Desjardins insurance to reimburse me at least $3,000.00 for financial loss and damages that I incurred. I look forward to your prompt response.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation in this matter. » (Soulignements de l’auteur) [ 15 ] Madame Diane Décary Martz est agente d’assurance depuis 21 ans. Elle explique que le « Quote » souscription est effectué par le demandeur via Internet. Par la suite, un agent de Desjardins communique avec lui, il demande et obtient une couverture complète pour trois (3) véhicules. Quant au véhicule Ford Focus âgé de plus de dix (10) ans, il a pris une couverture limitée qui était moins cher. [ 16 ] Le témoin suggère que la « comprehensive clause » a été discutée avec le demandeur, qui a rappelé le 26 octobre 2012 pour faire enlever cette couverture sur un Scooter, qui faisait

partie de ses 4 véhicules assurés avec Desjardins. [ 17 ] Monsieur Joël Doucet est conseiller aux relations avec les clients auprès de Desjardins. Il a tenté, sans succès, d’obtenir du demandeur une copie de sa police d’assurance antérieure afin de vérifier s’il disposait d’une couverture contre l’incendie pour le véhicule Ford Focus. [ 18 ] La position de Desjardins est décrite dans la lettre, datée du 30 octobre 2014, adressée au demandeur : « Further to your claim, I regret to inform you that no payment will be made for the damage sustained.

This is because your insurance policy does not afford coverage for the type of risk that we were notified of. Please do not hesitate to call me if you require any additional information. » [ 19 ] Le 19 novembre 2013, Desjardins réitère sa position en ces termes : « We are writing further to your email of November 14, 2013, concerning the claim you made for the fire that occurred on October 26, 2013 in your 2001 Ford Focus. After carefully reviewing your file, we confirm that we cannot approve your claim, because the above-mentioned vehicle is not covered under

Section B-3, Comprehensive (excluding collision or upset). We regret the inconvenience this situation has caused you, but we cannot exceed the commitment set out in your insurance policy. » 3. ANALYSE ET MOTIFS [ 20 ] Il ressort de la police d’assurance que trois des quatre véhicules du demandeur disposent d’une couverture d’assurance complète, ce qui inclut la couverture pour le feu ou incendie. [ 21 ] Quant au véhicule For Focus, il apparaît clairement sur la première page de la police, qu’elle ne dispose d’aucune protection pour des dommages audit véhicule. [ 22 ] Dans chacune des sous-sections de la

section B « loss of or damage to insured automobile », il est indiqué « Excluded ». [ 23 ] Le demandeur ne pouvait pas, suite à la réception et la lecture de la première page de la police, prétendre qu’il croyait que le véhicule Ford Focus est couvert pour le feu.

Il s’agit ici d’une sorte d’aveuglement volontaire. [ 24 ] La preuve dont le Tribunal dispose est loin d’être suffisante pour permettre d’établir que le représentant de Desjardins aurait indu le demandeur en erreur ou que la police qui a été émise ne correspond pas à ce qu’il avait demandé et accepté. [ 25 ] La décision de Desjardins était justifiée, car à la lecture de la première page de la police, il y a suffisamment d’éléments pour voir que le véhicule Ford Focus n’est couvert que pour la responsabilité civile et que des pertes et dommages à ce véhicule ne sont pas couverts. [ 26 ] Quant à la suggestion du demandeur sur l’inscription à la page du premium de 50 $ en rapport à la mention « fire deductible », il est clair que cette note réfère au véhicule 4, soit le « Hyosung Prima racing MOP ». [ 27 ] Pour ces motifs, le Tribunal conclut que la contestation est fondée et la demande doit être rejetée. [ 28 ] POUR CES MOTIFS, LE TRIBUNAL : [ 29 ] REJETTE la demande. __________________________________ DANIEL DORTÉLUS, J.C.Q.

Date d’audience : 20 octobre 2015