An insurance policy may provide coverage to stock damaged at a temporary off-site location
The appeal by Aviva Insurance of Canada ("Aviva") from a judgment finding that it was required to indemnify its insured, Wingtap Game Bird Packers (1993) Ltd. ("Wingtat"), for the full value of Wingtat's stock held in storage by a third party and lost in a fire was dismissed where the Court found that the clause in the policy providing coverage did not require that the address of a temporary location be specified on the Declarations Page as a precondition to coverage.
Wingtat Game Bird Packers (1993) Ltd. v. Aviva Insurance Company of Canada, [2009] B.C.J. No. 1515, July 30, 2009, British Columbia Court of Appeal, I.T. Donald, D.F. Tysoe and E.A. Bennett JJ.A.
Wingtat was in the business of slaughtering poultry and processing, packaging and selling poultry and meat. Wingtat had cold-storage facilities in its own premises but also used off-site cold-storage facilities owned by third parties. A fire at an off-site storage location destroyed Wingtat's stock valued at $800,000. Aviva took the position that coverage for this loss was limited to $25,000 as a result of the wording of paragraph 10 of a Multi Peril Extension Endorsement regarding temporary locations. Aviva pursued summary judgment with respect to its position. The Chambers Judge dismissed Aviva's application and Aviva appealed from that decision.
The Court of Appeal found that coverage was provided for stock at a temporary location under Clause 2.B of the insuring agreement. Clause 2.B did not require that the address of the temporary location be specified on the Declarations Page as a precondition to coverage. The Court noted that a requirement to specify the address of the temporary location on the Declarations Page could not be implied in Clause 2.B because such a requirement would make the clause superfluous with respect to the category of Temporary Locations. The Court rejected Aviva's argument that the Endorsement providing $25,000 in additional coverage for temporary locations limited such coverage noting that the Endorsement clearly stated that the extensions of coverage were in addition to the limits provided elsewhere in the policy. If the coverage in paragraph 10 of the endorsement was in addition to the limits provided elsewhere in the policy, then the wording in that paragraph could not possibly be construed to be a reduction or cap of those limits. The $25,000 limit in paragraph 10 of the Endorsement for temporary locations was simply a limit of the additional insurance provided by the Endorsement.
In the result, Aviva's appeal was dismissed.
This case was originally summarized by Jonathan D. Meadows and orginally edited by David W. Pilley.
