A Quebec court has told an insured that its fight over a denied marine insurance claim belongs in the US - not Canada.
In a ruling handed down on April 20, 2026, Quebec Superior Court Justice Catherine Martel granted jurisdictional challenges brought by ION Insurance Group, S.A., Keane Speciality Insurance LLC, and Lucantha Marine Insurance LLC, doing business as Flagship Marine Underwriters. The decision dismissed a warranty action and a Wellington-type application filed by Dream Yacht Charter, which had been trying to force the insurers to cover its defense costs and indemnify it in a related lawsuit.
The case traces back to July 2024, when a catamaran owned by 9285-6111 Québec inc. was damaged in the waters of the Bahamas. Dream Yacht Charter had been operating the vessel under a management contract. The catamaran was towed to Florida for repairs, and ION - the insurer on the policy - denied the claim. Its reason: the incident happened at night while the vessel was anchored, an activity ION said was not covered.
By March 2025, the vessel's owner and its shareholder, Louis-Yves Cloutier, had sued Dream Yacht Charter in Quebec. Then in July 2025, Dream Yacht Charter turned around and called ION, Keane - ION's claims administrator - and Flagship - the broker that issued the insurance certificate - into the proceeding, seeking to hold them responsible under the policy.
The insurers pushed back, pointing to a clause in the policy that gave US courts exclusive jurisdiction over any dispute arising from the coverage. That clause stated that "the courts of the United States of America shall have exclusive jurisdiction to settle any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with your policy or its subject matter or formation."
Dream Yacht Charter argued that Article 3150 of the Civil Code of Québec - which gives Quebec courts jurisdiction over insurance-related disputes - should override the clause. Justice Martel disagreed. She found that unlike other provisions in the Code that explicitly block forum selection agreements, Article 3150 does not contain that kind of restrictive language. The legislature, she concluded, intentionally left room for parties to agree on where insurance disputes would be heard.
The ruling also addressed whether Keane and Flagship - neither of which were parties to the insurance contract - could benefit from the clause. The Court found they could, reasoning that Dream Yacht Charter's claims against them were rooted entirely in the insurance policy. No independent wrongdoing had been alleged against either intermediary.
Dream Yacht Charter also asked the Court for a provisional order requiring ION to fund its defense while US proceedings got underway. That request was denied as well, with the Court finding no urgency had been shown.
For insurers and intermediaries operating across the Canada-US border, the decision sends a clear message: properly drafted forum selection clauses in insurance policies will be respected by Quebec courts, even where local law might otherwise establish jurisdiction. And for brokers and claims administrators, the case offers a measure of reassurance - if the claims against you stem from the policy, the clause may shield you too.
The case was heard on March 27, 2026, in the District of Montréal.
