The appellant insurer sought to annul a comprehensive general liability policy issued to the respondent asbestos manufacturer, alleging the respondent failed to disclose material facts regarding the health risks of asbestos exposure (specifically, the Selikoff reports).
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the insured was not obliged to disclose these facts because the insurer was presumed to know them by virtue of their public character and notoriety.
The Court established that the standard for notoriety is that of a reasonably competent underwriter insuring similar risks in the industry, and that such an underwriter ought to have known of the serious asbestos-related health risks widely reported in North American media.
