This imposition of vicarious liability was with a legislative intervention concerning automobile insurance. In the Automobile Insurance Act, adopted within the Insurance Act in many provinces, certain features were imposed upon all automobile liability policies.
Particularly, insurers were required to agree to provide cover against liability imposed legally upon the insured named inside the contract and each other person who with his consent personally drives a vehicle owned by the insured for loss or damage, arising from the ownership, use or operation with the motor vehicle. How to spend more and save less – great post to read
This provision addressed the issue posed by the normal law element privity of contract which had caused the Privy Council to deny the claim for indemnity from the daughter of the named insured owner within a liability policy. More generally, it ensured that, where the owner had liability insurance, its proceeds were available as compensation for any third party injured or otherwise caused loss with the negligent operation with the insured vehicle. Quite simply, it made compensation more widely available.
A really significant statutory modification of common law contract rules was a provision giving a wounded third party a primary right of action from the insurer of the baby – usually the automobile owner – primarily liable. Unlike the direct action provided by respect to non-automobile insurance, the right of action in automobile cases is not prejudiced by the insureds violation with the law or policy terms, or from the invalidity of the policy arising, for instance, from a material non-disclosure. Although the insurer may, in a few circumstances, claim reimbursement in the insured, the clear intent behind this provision was, and is also, to make money accessible to injured victims. To acquire this benefit victims must have a tort claim from the insured, but any contractual impediments related to the insured’s rights from the insurer don’t prevent recovery.