In The Co-operators General Insurance Company v. Murray et al., Mr. Justice Robert MacKinnon ruled that a homeowner’s insurance policy did not cover a claim that the insureds failed to supervise their son, who had been the driver in a single-car accident.
It was acknowledged on all sides, that the parents’ auto policy did not respond to the claim against them because their son had been driving someone else’s car at the time of the accident. However, the parents contended that their homeowner’s insurance policy ought to provide them with a defence to allegations in the plaintiffs’ claim, that the parents had failed to discipline or supervise their son and had failed to act as reasonable and prudent parents. The plaintiffs had also pleaded the reverse onus provision of s. 10 of the Parental Responsibility Act 2000, which says, “In an action against a parent for damage to property or for personal injury or death caused by the fault or neglect of a child who is a minor, the onus of establishing that the parent exercised reasonable supervision and control over the child rests with the parent.”
The insurer, Co-operators, took the position that it did not owe a defence to its insureds because the liability coverage in its homeowner’s policy contained an exclusion for damage arising from ownership, use or operation of any motorized vehicle.
Justice MacKinnon noted that “the court is not required to accept the descriptive labels in the Wilsons’ [the plaintiffs’] statement of claim as dispositive of the issues on this application….I must review the pleadings to discern the substance and true nature of the claim. Substance trumps form.”
His Honour reasoned that no matter how the evidence came out at trial, the parents could only be found liable if it were also found that their son had driven a car negligently. Findings of negligent supervision or poor parenting, standing alone, could not result in the parents being responsible to the plaintiffs in damages. Therefore, the pleaded claims were derivative of the negligent driving claims that had been made against the son. The latter engaged the exclusion in the Co-operators’ policy, with the result that there was no coverage for the parents.