The insured was covered by two insurance policies, one from Family Insurance and one from Lombard Canada, both containing 'other insurance' clauses declaring their coverage to be excess to any other insurance.
The trial judge found the clauses mutually repugnant and apportioned liability equally.
The Court of Appeal reversed, finding Family's policy primary based on surrounding circumstances.
The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that where competing policies cannot be read in harmony, the conflicting clauses should be treated as mutually repugnant and inoperative.
Both policies provide primary coverage, and the loss is borne equally by each insurer until the lower policy limit is exhausted.
