The appellant sued his insurance broker in negligence for failing to offer optional income replacement benefits.
The trial judge found the broker breached its duty of care but dismissed the action because the appellant failed to prove causation, specifically that he would have purchased the coverage if offered.
On appeal, the appellant argued that in cases of insurance broker negligence, the insured does not need to prove causation.
The Court of Appeal rejected this argument, holding that the normal rules of negligence apply and causation remains a question of fact.
Finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual conclusions, the appeal was dismissed.
