This summary does not constitute a legal opinion. The information it contains may not reflect the current state of the law.

In this matter, Defendant Promutuel insured Plaintiffs which were the victims of theft in their home. Promutuel essentially refused to indemnify Plaintiffs for their loss, which lead to an action in damages

To justify its refusal to indemnify, Promutuel alleged:

• Simulated theft by Plaintiffs;
• Plaintiffs’ financial situation did not allow them to purchase the goods they are claiming;
• Deceitful representations after the loss.

Justice Sirois blames Promutuel for invoking means that are not supported by facts, and even contradicted by its own witnesses at the trial in order to justify its refusal to indemnify.