Injuries received in a snowmobile accident are not covered by a CGL
The court concluded that the insurer had no duty to defend the applicant in a personal injury claim as the CGL policy contained an exclusion clause in respect of bodily injury sustained as a result of ownership, use or operation of a motor vehicle.
TR Construction Ltd. v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co. [2008] M.J. No. 243 Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, Winnipeg Centre G.D. Joyal, J. June 23, 2008
The applicant sought a declaration that a Commercial General Liability (“CGL”) policy written in favour of the applicant triggered the defendant insurance company’s duty to defend in respect of an underlying personal injury action. The applicant had been sued in respect of injuries the plaintiff in the underlying action alleges he sustained while operating a courtesy snowmobile the applicant lent him while the applicant was repairing the plaintiff’s snowmobile. The applicant also had a garage policy under the Manitoba Public Insurance (“MPI”) automobile insurance scheme. MPI had refused to defend the applicant in respect of the underlying action on the basis of an exclusion clause. The CGL policy contained an exclusion clause in respect of bodily injury sustained as a result of ownership, use or operation of a motor vehicle.
The applicant argued that the substance of the underlying action was an allegation of negligent repair of the courtesy snowmobile, and did not arise out of the ownership, use or operation of a motor vehicle. The respondent insurer argued that the substance of the underlying action arose out the ownership, use or operation of a motor vehicle, and thus was excluded by the CGL policy, and that there was therefore no duty to defend.
The court held that there were no allegations in the underlying action that could reasonably stand alone as a ground for recovery outside of the use, operation or ownership of a motor vehicle and that the authorities establish that maintenance and repair of a motor vehicle fall within the ambit of use, operation or ownership of that motor vehicle. Accordingly, the court found that the substance of the underlying action was excluded by the CGL policy and therefore the underlying action did not trigger the defendant insurer’s duty to defend.
This case was originally summarized by jhavellar@harpergrey.com and originally edited by dpilley@harpergrey.com
