Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 12 MARCH 2018

Lack Of Consent = No SEF No. 44 Coverage

Miller Thomson
Miller Thomson
Contributor

Miller Thomson

Miller Thomson LLP ("Miller Thomson") is a national business law firm with approximately 500...

View firm profile
Explore more from Miller Thomson

In the recent case of Cardinal v. Alberta Motor Association Insurance Company, 2018 ABCA 69 (CanLII), the Alberta Court of Appeal overruled the lower court, determining that an injured passenger was not covered ...

CanadaInsurance

In the recent case of Cardinal v. Alberta Motor Association Insurance Company, 2018 ABCA 69 (CanLII), the Alberta Court of Appeal overruled the lower court, determining that an injured passenger was not covered under an SEF No. 44 Family Protection Endorsement to the SPF No. 1 Standard Automobile policy as the vehicle was being used without the consent of the owner.

In this case, the Alberta Motor Association denied coverage to Cardinal under the SPF No. 44 Endorsement on the ground of an exclusion in the Standard Automobile policy which states:

"No person shall be entitled to indemnity or payment under this Policy who is an occupant of any automobile which is being used without the consent of the owner thereof."

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from