No inconsistency in finding hotel had obligation of prudence and that stolen cars not in hotel’s control

Travelers left their car in the parking lot of hotel and handed over their keys. Upon their return, they found that their car had been stolen. Insurer A, being subrogated to rights of its insured, brought action against hotel and hotel called its insurer in warranty. Insurer P brought action against hotel and hotel’s insurer and both actions were joined and were heard together. Trial judge found hotel liable for theft of cars and held that exclusion clause in hotel’s liability insurance policy did not apply. Hotel’s insurer was ordered to compensate hotel in first case and insurer P in second. Hotel’s insurer and hotel appealed from that judgement. Court of Appeal confirmed hotel’s liability, but found that exclusion clause applied. Hotel and insurer P appealed. Hotel’s appeal allowed in part; insurer P’s appeal allowed. Court of Appeal’s intervention was unwarranted, for three reasons. First, it was not accurate to say that judge had not considered handover of keys. Second, record did not permit Court of Appeal to review judge’s finding on reason why the guests handed over their keys to hotel. Third, there was no contradiction or inconsistency in law between judge’s finding that hotel had obligation of prudence and diligence and her finding that stolen cars were not in its care, custody or control.

3091 5177 Québec inc. (Éconolodge Aéroport) v. Lombard General Insurance Co. of Canada (2018), 2018 CarswellQue 9016, 2018 CarswellQue 9017, 2018 SCC 43, 2018 CSC 43, Wagner C.J.C., Abella J., Moldaver J., Karakatsanis J., Gascon J., Côté J., Brown J., Rowe J., and Martin J. (S.C.C.); reversed (2016), 2016 CarswellQue 11276, 2016 QCCA 1903, Bélanger J.C.A., Hogue J.C.A., and Chamberland J.C.A. (C.A. Que.).