In October 2024 the Court of Appeal for Ontaria held that the policyholders did not have to prove their ownership of six pieces of jewellery that were insured and stolen in a bag snatching incident whilst they were on a visit to Vietnam. The insurers, Jeweler’s Mutual, by accepting that there had been no misrepresentation when the policy was taken out, had accepted that, when it issued the policy, the respondents owned the jewellery.

When the policy was taken out, the applicants for insurance answered a number of questions in regard to the description of the jewellery, information about who wears it and how often, and a statement of its replacement value. The application form asked about the frequency of travel and the safeguards for the jewellery while travelling. The policyholders answered that there are one to three overnight trips per year including overseas travel, and the jewellery was “with insured at all times”. The insurer did not request evidence of ownership nor insurable interest apart from the policyholders’ attestation of ownership during the online application process.

The proof of loss provisions required an inventory of the lost property showing quality, description, cost and actual cash value and the amount of the loss, with copies of all bills, receipts, and related documents that substantiate the inventory. The court emphasised that the phrase “related documents that substantiate the inventory” related to information that the insurer “may reasonably request”. There was no specific requirement to prove purchase nor ownership of the jewellery. The purchases described by the policyholder occurred years before the appraisals.

The court found for the policyholders.

A similar result would follow in South Africa on similar policy wording and circumstances. Accepting an insured value and a premium based on that value without proof of ownership is binding. In the absence of any explicit and enforceable requirement to prove ownership at claims stage, the failure to ask for information at application stage will not justify a rejection of the claim.

[Truong v Jeweler’s Mutual Insurance Company, 2024 ONCA 734 (7 October 2024) Docket: COA-23-CV-0850]