A property owner is not entitled to insurance coverage under it's maintenance companies insurance policy for liabilities associated with negligence arising from the Occupier's Liability Act.
A person was injured when the slipped and fell infront of a property. They sued the owner of the property and the company responsible for keeping the property free of ice. The owner of the property sought coverage under the maintainer's certificate of insurance. The Ontario Superior Court determined that the owner was not entitled to insurance coverage because the allegations against the owner arose out of their position as occupier of the property a cause of action that was distinct from the allegations of negligence agains the maintainer.
Here is the case citation: D’Cruz v. B.P. Landscaping Ltd. [2007] O.J. No. 2704. Ontario Superior Court of Justice. N.M. Mossip J. July 11, 2007.
Here is a link to the cite.
This case was originally summarized by Shanti Davies and edited by David Pilley.
An action was brought by a third party plaintiff for injuries sustained in a slip and fall accident, which occurred at premises of the Owner. The action was against both the Owner and a landscaping company, which had a contract with the Owner to perform services at the premises, including winter maintenance.
The landscaping company (the "Insured") had obtained a general liability insurance policy from the Insurer, which included coverage for bodily injury and death, among other things, caused by the Insured’s activities and operations.
The Owner’s position on the motion for summary judgment was that the Certificate of Insurance between the Insurer and the Insured added the Owner as an insured and the Insurer therefore had a duty to defend the Owner with respect to any claim arising out of the alleged negligence of the Insured. The Owner also argued that because the Insurer would be required to defend it in respect of claims against the Insured, this would open the door and require the Insurer to defend the Owner against claims which were outside of the policy’s coverage.
The Court dismissed the Owner’s motion for summary judgment on the basis that the Owner was covered and was already being defended by the Insurer for the plaintiff’s claims of negligence against the Insured contractor with respect to winter maintenance. However, the Owner was not covered, as a named insured, for acts of negligence arising from its operations as an occupier of the premises as these claims were separate and distinct claims of liability, and were unrelated to the Insured’s acts.
