Fraudulent Cross-Contamination: The Broad Effects of Misrepresentation on Indemnity feature image

Fraudulent Cross-Contamination: The Broad Effects of Misrepresentation on Indemnity

Written by Michael Hokanson and Taylor Hudson

Insurance coverage disputes are common and can be complicated when an insured provides false or misleading information to the insurer as part of their claim. However, a recent Alberta decision has provided some much-needed clarity for insurers with respect to their obligation to honour a claim after an insured has acted in bad faith.

Insured Misrepresented His Employment Status

Mr. Ali Abbas was a passenger in the backseat of a car driven by an uninsured driver when an accident occurred and he was thrown out of the car. Mr. Abbas was seriously hurt and filed a claim with his insurer, Esurance Insurance Company of Canada, for Section B disability benefits and coverage under the SEF 44 endorsement of his automobile insurance policy.

Esurance required that Mr. Abbas complete a form to access Section B disability benefits. Mr. Abbas lied about his employment situation on the form. He subsequently lied to the insurance adjuster and provided a forged employer’s certificate and hiring letter. Finally, his uncle perpetuated the lie in suggesting that Mr. Abbas worked for his business under the table.

Esurance denied Mr. Abbas Section B benefits as he did not qualify. Esurance further denied Mr. Abbas SEF 44 coverage on the basis of his false statements given in relation to the Section B disability benefits. Mr. Abbas then brought an action seeking coverage under the SEF 44 endorsement of his policy.

Esurance’s application for summary dismissal of the action was dismissed by the Master. He held that a determination that Mr. Abbas had forfeited all of his rights under the contract by virtue of his fraud, dishonestly and lack of good faith would be “draconian”. The false statements and fraud related to Section B benefits only; it would be patently unfair to deny SEF 44 coverage on that basis.

Esurance then successfully appealed to Justice Johnston in Abbas v Esurance Company of Canada, where the claim was summarily dismissed in a strong rebuke of dishonest behaviour.

Did the Insured Invalidate his Claim Under s. 554(1) of the Insurance Act?

The first issue on appeal was whether Mr. Abbas had invalidated his insurance claim and forfeited his right to recover SEF 44 coverage by operation of s. 554(1) of the Insurance Act, RSA 2000, c I-3:

Misrepresentation, fraud or violation of condition

554(1) If …

(b)    the insured contravenes a term of the contract or commits a fraud, or

(c)    the insured wilfully makes a false statement in respect of a claim under the contract,

a claim by the insured is invalid and the right of the insured to recover indemnity is forfeited.

Mr. Abbas said that a “claim” under s 554 only applied to the claim in which the fraud or misrepresentation was made. In effect, each claim becomes a watertight compartment; the contamination of fraud in one does not penetrate the others. Esurance, and the Court, disagreed. A “claim” includes any claim under the contract of insurance. Therefore the contravention of any term of the contract or willfully making a false claim in respect of any claim under the contract results in the invalidation of claims and forfeiture of an insured’s right to recover indemnity under the contract (para 41). Fraud and lies cross-contaminate all claims.

The Court held that this interpretation was consistent with the Insurance Act as a whole. When an insured fails to put forward their claim honestly and in good faith, the forfeiture of indemnity under the policy is hardly “draconian”. Section 520 of the Insurance Act affords Courts the discretion to relieve against forfeiture where there is mere imperfect compliance, rather than non-compliance, with the terms of an insurance policy.

Did the Insured Invalidate His Claim by Failing to Act in Good Faith?

The second issue was whether a failure to meet the common law requirement that both insured and insurer act in good faith would invalidate the entire claim. The Court noted that while courts should not lightly restrict the rights of insureds to indemnity, reprehensible conduct, such as Mr. Abbas’ lies, forgery and fraud, justified such a response. The “overarching thesis” of the cases, that “insurance fraud is serious and will result in the forfeiture of coverage”, applied.

The Abbas decision confirms that if an insured breaches policy terms, commits fraud, or makes willfully false statements in respect of a claim, their entire claim is invalid and their right to recover any indemnity is forfeit.

Contact HMC Lawyers in Calgary for Experienced Representation in Insurance Disputes

At HMC Lawyers, our insurance lawyers have decades of collective experience and a thorough understanding of potential risks as well as legal issues that commonly arise in insurance coverage disputes.  We understand the importance of risk management, especially when it comes to questions of insurance coverage and strive to provide our clients with certainty by helping them identify and avoid potential problems wherever possible. To discuss an insurance coverage matter or related dispute, call 1-800-480-3534 or contact us online.

mobile skyline

Contact HMC Lawyers for Exceptional Legal Guidance

At HMC Lawyers, we offer strategic legal advice. Our breadth of practice experience allows us to promptly handle almost every litigation-related legal issue that may arise, and anticipate potential roadblocks that may delay its resolution. To make an appointment with a member of our team, contact us online or call 403-269-7220

For articling and/or summer student inquiries please contact either Kristen Hagg or Praveen Thind by calling 403.269.7220 or emailing them directly at

HMC Lawyers LLP
#1000 903 8th Ave SW
Calgary, AB
T2P 0P7

    Please provide us with as much detail as you can about your case. A lawyer from HMC Lawyers will be in touch as soon as possible.

    I have read the disclaimer.