Insurance - Interpretation
Sabean v. Portage La Prairie Mutual Insurance Co. (SCC, 2017)
In this case the Supreme Court of Canada succinctly states basic principles of interpretation of standard-form insurance contracts:
 In Ledcor Construction Ltd. v. Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Co., 2016 SCC 37 (CanLII), this Court confirmed the principles of contract interpretation applicable to standard form insurance contracts. The overriding principle is that where the language of the disputed clause is unambiguous, reading the contract as a whole, effect should be given to that clear language: Ledcor, at para. 49; Progressive Homes Ltd. v. Lombard General Insurance Co. of Canada, 2010 SCC 33 (CanLII),  2 S.C.R. 245, at para. 22; Non-Marine Underwriters, Lloyd’s of London v. Scalera, 2000 SCC 24 (CanLII),  1 S.C.R. 551, at para. 71. Only where the disputed language in the policy is found to be ambiguous, should general rules of contract construction be employed to resolve that ambiguity: Ledcor, at para. 50. Finally, if these general rules of construction fail to resolve the ambiguity, courts will construe the contract contra proferentem, and interpret coverage provisions broadly and exclusion clauses narrowly: Ledcor, at para. 51.
 At the first step of the analysis for standard form contracts of insurance, the words used must be given their ordinary meaning, “as they would be understood by the average person applying for insurance, and not as they might be perceived by persons versed in the niceties of insurance law”: Co-operators Life Insurance Co. v. Gibbens, 2009 SCC 59 (CanLII),  3 S.C.R. 605, at para. 21; see also Ledcor, at para. 27.