Damages to an apartment caused by a tenant's animals may not be covered by the landlord's insurance.
A plaintiff apartment owner (“Cambridge”) was unsuccessful in its application for a determination that the damage to an apartment unit caused by animals was a result of “vandalism”.
A good summary of the case is contained at bar-ex.
Cambridge Realty (Ottawa) Ltd. v. Aviva Insurance Co. of Canada [2008] O.J. No. 3090 Ontario Superior Court of Justice S.J. Kershman J. August 11, 2008.
Cambridge owned a rental unit in Ottawa, Ontario which was insured by the defendant insurer (“Aviva”). Cambridge rented the property to a tenant who resided there from 1995 until 2006. During that time, Cambridge began receiving complaints from neighbours with respect to the number of animals living in the unit including dogs, cats and rabbits. In March 2006, Cambridge obtained an order from the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal terminating the tenancy and the tenant was evicted on May 9, 2006. Cambridge entered the premises and discovered extensive damage totalling approximately $59,000. Cambridge then sought indemnification from Aviva under its commercial policy of insurance. Aviva denied the claim on the basis that it was an excluded loss. The plaintiff applied to court for determination of whether the damage to the unit was the result of “vandalism”.
At trial, the plaintiff argued that the tenant vandalised the premises by wilfully and maliciously allowing the animals to damage the premises. The plaintiff alleged that given the number of animals and the extent of damage caused, there was no doubt that the tenant allowed the animals to cause the damage on purpose. The court reviewed various dictionary definitions of “vandalism” and held that the burden was on the plaintiff to demonstrate that the damage was caused by the tenant with intent or with “reckless and wanton disregard of the rights of others as to be the equivalent of intent”. The court reviewed the agreed statement of facts and found that there was nothing either express or implied from which one could conclude that the tenant was of unsound mind or that she brought about the damage by intent or reckless and wanton disregard of the rights of others as to be the equivalent of intent. As a result, the court held that the incident was not one of vandalism and, therefore, was an excluded loss under the policy.
This case was originally summarized by jmeadows@harpergrey.com and originally edited by dpilley@harpergrey.com
Nice post.
---------
James Hood