A five-year-old child was injured in a single-vehicle accident while a passenger in her father's uninsured vehicle.
The child sought coverage under the uninsured motorist provisions of her mother's automobile insurance policy.
The insurer denied coverage, arguing the father's vehicle was excluded from the definition of 'uninsured automobile' because the father was the spouse of the named insured.
The motion judge found that 'the insured' in the exclusionary clause referred only to the person making the claim, meaning the child was entitled to coverage.
The Court of Appeal upheld this interpretation, finding it consistent with the purpose of the Insurance Act to internalize driving costs and the principle that ambiguities in insurance coverage should be resolved in favour of the insured.
