1. Introduction
In Canadian insurance law, endorsements and exclusions play central—yet opposite—roles in defining the scope of insurance coverage. The distinction is crucial: endorsements broaden, amend, or tailor coverage, while exclusions remove or limit coverage that would otherwise exist. Saskatchewan courts have addressed both concepts in notable decisions, illustrating how they function in practice.
This article reviews the legal distinction between endorsements and exclusions and analyzes relevant Saskatchewan case law, including Seaman v Saskatchewan Mutual Insurance Company, 2015 SKQB 197, Jantzen Estate v. TD Life Insurance Co., 2023 SKCA 76, and decisions concerning project‑related exclusions.
2. What Is an Endorsement?
An endorsement (also called a rider) is a written amendment to an insurance policy that adds to, modifies, or clarifies coverage. Endorsements can:
- Expand coverage limits
- Provide optional protections
- Override default policy wording
Saskatchewan Example: SEF 44 Endorsement
The SEF 44 Family Protection Endorsement, common across Canada and applied in Saskatchewan, illustrates the purpose of an endorsement: it provides additional indemnity when an at‑fault driver’s insurance coverage is insufficient.
Case: Seaman v. Saskatchewan Mutual Insurance Co., 2015 SKQB 197
In Seaman, the insured sought indemnity under the SEF 44 endorsement for losses exceeding the $200,000 statutory minimum available from the at‑fault driver. The court emphasized the endorsement’s role as extended coverage, not a carve‑out (i.e., the opposite of an exclusion). The Court of Queen’s Bench confirmed that SEF 44 modifies the contract by adding an extra layer of protection and ruled in the plaintiff’s favour on limitation period issues.
This case highlights how endorsements function as coverage enhancers.
3. What Is an Exclusion?
An exclusion is a contractual provision specifying risks, circumstances, or losses that the insurer will not cover. Exclusions:
- Limit the insurer’s risk exposure
- Remove categories of claims from coverage
- Must be interpreted narrowly under Canadian law
Saskatchewan Example: Criminal‑Offence-Based Exclusions
Saskatchewan’s courts have had multiple opportunities to interpret exclusion clauses, particularly those linked to criminal activity.
Case: Jantzen Estate v. TD Life Insurance Co., 2023 SKCA 76
In this decision, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal upheld the insurer’s denial of benefits because the insured died while committing and as a result of possessing cocaine—both criminal offences. The policy contained criminal‑offence‑based exclusions that removed coverage. The Court held that even though the overdose was accidental, the death was sufficiently connected to the criminal act to trigger the exclusions.
This case illustrates how exclusions operate to remove coverage entirely for certain scenarios, even when causation is complex.
4. Comparing Endorsements and Exclusions
| Feature | Endorsements | Exclusions |
| Purpose | Expand or clarify coverage | Remove or limit coverage |
| Effect on Policy | Add protections | Restrict protections |
| Interpretation Principle | Generally construed broadly | Interpreted narrowly against the insurer |
| Saskatchewan Guidance | Seaman (SEF 44 adds coverage) | Jantzen Estate, KPCL cases (exclusions limit or bar coverage) |
5. Saskatchewan Case Law Illustrating Exclusions Further
5.1 Project and Operations Exclusions: KPCL Case
A 2023 Saskatchewan Court of Appeal ruling involving Kelly Panteluk Construction Ltd. v Lloyd’s Underwriters, 2024 SKCA 4
(KPCL) addressed exclusion clauses in the context of construction project insurance.
The Court held that Lloyd’s of London validly denied coverage based on:
- Operations exclusion, and
- Project damage exclusion
These exclusions applied even though the insured argued that other contractors’ work contributed to an embankment’s collapse. The court confirmed that the pleadings did not support shifting liability to third parties and upheld the application of the exclusions.
This case reinforces that exclusions can sharply limit coverage—even where an insured asserts shared responsibility.
6. Judicial Interpretation Trends
Saskatchewan courts follow Canadian principles:
- Unambiguous language governs.
- Ambiguities are resolved in favour of the insured.
- Exclusions cannot be interpreted so broadly as to nullify promised coverage.
(See general Supreme Court of Canada guidance noted in broader Canadian jurisprudence.)
7. Conclusion
Endorsements and exclusions serve opposite functions in insurance contracts: endorsements expand coverage while exclusions limit it. Saskatchewan case law provides clear illustrations of both concepts in action.
- Endorsements (e.g., SEF 44 in Seaman) strengthen the insured’s protection.
- Exclusions (e.g., criminal‑offence exclusions in Jantzen Estate, project‑related exclusions in KPCL) impose boundaries that can significantly restrict coverage.
Understanding how Saskatchewan courts interpret these provisions is vital for policyholders, insurers, and legal practitioners alike. The courts’ consistent emphasis on clear drafting, reasonable expectations, and narrow interpretation of exclusions guides the ongoing development of insurance law in the province.