Giving words their plain meaning is a tenet of both will interpretation and contractual interpretation. Sometimes, the plain meaning of the words means that “reading in” additional wording is unnecessary and inappropriate.
This concept is illustrated in the short Ontario Court of Appeal decision of Hunter Estate v. Thompson, 2003 CanLII 23007 (ON CA). There, the court considered whether a vehicle owner had insurance coverage. The policy of insurance covered the insured’s vehicles and any newly acquired vehicles IF “we insure all automobiles you own”. There, the insured acquired a new vehicle that was subsequently involved in an accident. The insured had another vehicle that was insured, and a third vehicle that was not insured.
The insurer took the position that the precondition for coverage in the policy was not met. The insured argued that the phrase “if we insure all automobiles that you own” should be read as meaning “all automobiles that you own” THAT ARE INSURED BY ANOTHER INSURER. The clause would NOT preclude coverage if there was another vehicle that was not insured by anyone.
The Court of Appeal agreed with the insurance company. Without citing any case law, the Court of Appeal held that there was nothing in the language of the provision that confined its application to circumstances where there was another insurer. Simply put, the insured owned another vehicle; it was not insured by the insurer. Therefore the precondition of the policy was not met and there was no coverage.
Thank you for reading.
P.S. I came across this decision while looking up Johnny Depp and his involvement in the funeral of author Hunter S. Thompson. Alas, we have already blogged on this, here.