A sleeping car owner cannot be denied insurance coverage when an unauthorized driver crashes, an Alberta court ruled this week.
The December 9 decision from the Court of King's Bench of Alberta tackled an unusual scenario that tested the limits of a common policy exclusion.
Roger Sterling Amour found himself in that exact situation during a July 2015 road trip from Ontario back to Alberta. Fatigued from driving his 2013 Cadillac Escalade, Amour pulled into a rest stop with two friends, Andrew Rioux and Max Matthews. He left the keys in the middle console and told Rioux, who was awake in the front passenger seat, that if Rioux slept, then when he awoke, Rioux should begin driving. Then Amour climbed into the back seat and fell asleep.
What happened next became the crux of a years-long insurance dispute. Matthews, who had been living with Amour as a household member for nearly a year, woke up and decided to drive instead. There was just one problem: Matthews did not have a valid license. In fact, his right to obtain one was suspended, something Amour knew about. Everyone later agreed Matthews never had permission to drive.
Things went sideways quickly. Matthews fell asleep at the wheel and hit a rock near Ignace, Ontario, damaging the vehicle. When Amour filed a claim for the damage, Security National Insurance Company refused to pay, pointing to an exclusion clause that denies coverage to occupants of vehicles being used without the owner's consent.
The insurer argued that Amour qualified as an occupant because he was being carried in the vehicle when the accident happened. But Justice Bonnie L. Bokenfohr disagreed, finding the policy language itself undermined that interpretation.
The policy defines occupant as someone driving, being carried in or upon, entering, getting on to, or alighting from a vehicle. Most of those terms suggest active participation or intention, the court noted. That created enough ambiguity to interpret the exclusion narrowly, as insurance law requires.
The court ruled Amour was entitled to coverage on three separate grounds. First, he could not be considered an occupant under the exclusion because he was asleep and had no intention of being in the vehicle while Matthews drove.
Second, Alberta law prevents insurers from using defenses that would not fly in the province where an accident occurred. The Ontario policy explicitly requires an occupant to willingly become one while knowing the vehicle is being used without consent. Since Amour was asleep, he could not meet that standard. The court acknowledged this interpretation broke new ground, noting neither side could find similar case law.
Third, even if the exclusion technically applied, another section of Alberta's Insurance Act allows courts to strike down policy provisions deemed unjust or unreasonable. The court pointed to an extreme example: under the insurer's reading, even a kidnapping victim could be denied coverage for damage to their own vehicle.
The appeal was dismissed. Amour gets his coverage.
