Insurance Law Blog
Knowledge Centre

Court upholds insurer’s denial of life insurance coverage after insured’s overdose

July 12, 2022

Insurance law – Life insurance – Criminal offences – Exclusions – Duties and liabilities of insurer – Practice – Summary judgments

Jantzen Estate (Personal Representative of) v. TD Life Insurance Co., [2022] S.J. No. 171, 2022 SKQB 113, Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench, April 18, 2022, D.G. Gerecke J.

The insurer applied for summary judgment of the plaintiff estate’s claim arising from two life insurance policies which covered the life of the deceased insured. One policy covered the amount owed by the insured under a line of credit, while the other policy covered the amount the insured owed under a mortgage. The insurer argued that the insured died as a result or while committing a criminal offence (possession of cocaine) and denied coverage pursuant to exclusion clauses in the policies.

The coroner’s report found the insured’s cause of death was an overdose of cocaine and alcohol. Lethal quantities of cocaine were found in the insured’s system but there was no suspicion of foul play. An autopsy report stated that the insured had a corner of a plastic bag containing white powder suggestive of cocaine in his wallet. However, this white powder was not tested. There was no other evidence indicating any substance suspected or confirmed to be an illegal drug was found in the insured’s home or on his person.

On the mortgage policy, coverage is excluded if the insured dies as a result of committing a criminal offence or if the insured dies while committing a criminal offence.  On the line of credit policy, coverage is excluded in the above two instances and also if the insured’s death is associated with committing a criminal offence.

The insurer argued that the white powder in the insured’s possession was cocaine such that he died while committing a criminal offence. The insurer further argued that the insured died of an overdose of cocaine and alcohol, after consuming a lethal quantity of cocaine and therefore died as a result of the criminal offence of possession of cocaine. The estate submitted that once the cocaine was ingested, there ceased to be a possession offence and the consumption of cocaine is not a criminal offence.

The Court drew an inference from the surrounding circumstances and the fact that the insured placed the small quantity of white powder in his wallet in concluding it was more likely than not that the white powder was cocaine. The Court found that based on the description of the white powder in the autopsy report, there was a sufficient quantity of cocaine such that the threshold for possession of cocaine was met. Further, if the white powder was probably cocaine, the insured was familiar enough with cocaine such that he would have known what it was.  On this basis, the Court found that the insured died while committing a criminal offence which triggers the exclusion clauses in both policies. The Court dismissed the plaintiff’s claim.

The Court commented that with respect to the cocaine consumed by the insured, possession of the cocaine did not inevitably lead to its consumption thereby leading to the insured’s death. As possession did not cause his death, the Court found he did not die as a result of committing a criminal offence. Further, the insurers failed to establish that the insured died while possessing the cocaine he ingested. The Court did find that the insured’s death was associated with a criminal offence as, had he not died, it would be possible that the insured would be convicted of possession of cocaine. Therefore, had the Court not found in favour of the insurer with respect to the white powder found in the insured’s wallet, the Court would have ruled in favour of the estate with respect to the denial of coverage under the mortgage policy.

This case was digested by Dominic Wan, and first published in the LexisNexis® Harper Grey Insurance Law Netletter and the Harper Grey Insurance Law Newsletter. If you would like to discuss this case further, please contact Dominic Wan at [email protected].

To stay current with the new case law and emerging legal issues in this area, subscribe here.

Tags

Expertise

Important Notice: The information contained in this Article is intended for general information purposes only and does not create a lawyer-client relationship. It is not intended as legal advice from Harper Grey LLP or the individual author(s), nor intended as a substitute for legal advice on any specific subject matter. Detailed legal counsel should be sought prior to undertaking any legal matter. The information contained in this Article is current to the last update and may change. Last Update: July 12, 2022.

Related

Imposition of Punitive Damages Reminder to Employers of Duty of Good Faith
Imposition of Punitive Damages Reminder to Employers of Duty of Good Faith Imposition of Punitive Damages Reminder to Employers of Duty of Good Faith
Harper Grey Ranks Amongst Top Firms in Lexpert’s 2025 Bulls-Eye Chart
Harper Grey Ranks Amongst Top Firms in Lexpert’s 2025 Bulls-Eye Chart
Adam Way and Caryna Miller present at GeoEnviroPro Talk  
Adam Way and Caryna Miller present at GeoEnviroPro Talk   Adam Way and Caryna Miller present at GeoEnviroPro Talk   Adam Way and Caryna Miller present at GeoEnviroPro Talk  
Harper Grey included on Lexpert’s 2025 List of 12 Largest Firms in Vancouver
Harper Grey included on Lexpert’s 2025 List of 12 Largest Firms in Vancouver
Airbnb successful on appeal contesting OIPC Decision to disclose hosts personal addresses
Airbnb successful on appeal contesting OIPC Decision to disclose hosts personal addresses Airbnb successful on appeal contesting OIPC Decision to disclose hosts personal addresses
Imperfect Compliance? No Problem!
Imperfect Compliance? No Problem! Imperfect Compliance? No Problem! Imperfect Compliance? No Problem!
Court finds that structural damage at property was caused by settlement over time, culminating in sudden event, rather than sinkhole or subsidence, such that exclusion in Policy applied to oust coverage
Court finds that structural damage at property was caused by settlement over time, culminating in sudden event, rather than sinkhole or subsidence, such that exclusion in Policy applied to oust coverage Court finds that structural damage at property was caused by settlement over time, culminating in sudden event, rather than sinkhole or subsidence, such that exclusion in Policy applied to oust coverage Court finds that structural damage at property was caused by settlement over time, culminating in sudden event, rather than sinkhole or subsidence, such that exclusion in Policy applied to oust coverage
Insured denied defence in respect to negligence claim arising out of sale of property
Insured denied defence in respect to negligence claim arising out of sale of property Insured denied defence in respect to negligence claim arising out of sale of property Insured denied defence in respect to negligence claim arising out of sale of property
Insurers for parties on whom minor was equally financially dependent had priority for payment of SABS to minor injured in MVA
Insurers for parties on whom minor was equally financially dependent had priority for payment of SABS to minor injured in MVA Insurers for parties on whom minor was equally financially dependent had priority for payment of SABS to minor injured in MVA Insurers for parties on whom minor was equally financially dependent had priority for payment of SABS to minor injured in MVA
Security in Numbers: Who’s Liable for Coverage for One Incident with Two Policies?
Security in Numbers: Who’s Liable for Coverage for One Incident with Two Policies? Security in Numbers: Who’s Liable for Coverage for One Incident with Two Policies? Security in Numbers: Who’s Liable for Coverage for One Incident with Two Policies?
Adam Way joins Harper Grey Partnership
Adam Way joins Harper Grey Partnership Adam Way joins Harper Grey Partnership
Jennifer Woznesensky elected as newest member of Harper Grey’s Practice Management Committee
Jennifer Woznesensky elected as newest member of Harper Grey’s Practice Management Committee Jennifer Woznesensky elected as newest member of Harper Grey’s Practice Management Committee
Steven Abramson elected as Harper Grey’s Managing Partner
Steven Abramson elected as Harper Grey’s Managing Partner Steven Abramson elected as Harper Grey’s Managing Partner
What you do know can hurt you
What you do know can hurt you What you do know can hurt you What you do know can hurt you
Reporting late provides no relief
Reporting late provides no relief Reporting late provides no relief Reporting late provides no relief
arrow icon

Subscribe