La réclamation en dommages punitifs et son effet sur l’assurance responsabilité : analyse de la faute intentionnelle et de l’atteinte illicite et intentionnelle
Claims for punitive damages have proliferated over the years before the courts. For such claim to be granted, it is required to demonstrate an unlawful and intentional interference with any right or freedom protected by the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. Liability claims can be covered by insurance. However, the Civil Code of Québec specifically provides that the insurer is never bound to indemnify the insured’s intentional fault. Does this mean that the insurer has no obligation towards its insured when punitive damages are sought? The question is thus whether the concept of intentional fault and of unlawful and intentional interference are concepts that are equivalent or that need to be distinguished. For this analysis, the two concepts will be adressed in depth. The origin of these two concepts, their founding principles and their interpretation will be discussed to ultimately define these terms as precisely as possible. These definitions will then help to compare these two concepts and determine in the end that there are several elements that differentiate these concepts, particularly in regard to the required intent, with the result that they can not be assimilated. This conclusion will have a definite impact on the insurer’s obligations to defend the insured and to indemnify the victim for compensatory damages if punitive damages are also sought. Therefore, the insurer cannot justify its refusal to defend or indemnify solely on the basis of the evidence of an unlawful and intentional interference.
Intention Risque Aléa Préjudice Intentional fault Unlawful and intentional interference Intention Risk Hazard Punitive damages Preventive purpose Injury Insurance law Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms