The appellants appealed a decision denying their claim for replacement value coverage under their automobile insurance policy.
The appellants argued that an insurance agent misrepresented that the coverage would last for five full years from the vehicle's delivery, whereas the policy terms ended the coverage at the policy expiry date between four and five years.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the policy terms were not surprising or shocking, a new contract was formed upon the annual renewal which explicitly excluded the coverage, and the appellants did not rely on the alleged misrepresentation to their detriment.
