A clause excluding coverage for damage arising out of the operation of attached equipment did not apply where the equipment was in use but not being directly controlled at the time of the accident.

Dadey v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, [2014] B.C.J. No. 2118, August 15, 2014, British Columbia Supreme Court, R.W. Jenkins J.

Continue Reading...

The insured’s property damage claim under a homeowner’s policy for damage to her house alleged to have been caused by a contractor fell within the “faulty workmanship” exclusion of the insured’s insurance policy, which also excluded resulting damage from faulty workmanship.

Monk v. Farmers' Mutual Insurance Co. (Lindsay), [2014] O.J. 3509, June 27, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, E.J. Koke J.

Continue Reading...

At appeal, the court upheld the trial judge’s decision that a tenant’s insertion of cardboard into furnace controls which caused the furnace to run continually until failure, did not fall within the mechanical breakdown or pollution exclusion under the insured landlord’s all-risk insurance policy. The court also upheld the lower court’s decision that the letter from the adjuster advising no proof of loss was required constituted waiver of the insured’s requirement to file the proof of loss.

O'Byrne v. Farmers' Mutual Insurance Co., [2014] O.J. No. 3303, July 11, 2014, Ontario Court of Appeal, G.J. Epstein, S.E. Pepall and K.M. van Rensburg JJ.A.

Continue Reading...

Reasonable preventative measures taken by an insured to prevent probable future damages may not be recoverable where the policy excludes coverage for any defect or fault in material or design. This was the case even where an insured loss occurred in an identical piece of machinery as a result of the same defect for which the insured then took preventative steps. The insured’s costs to repair and business losses were a result of its own precautionary measures, and not an accidental or fortuitous event.

Mississippi River Power Corp. v. Municipal Electric Assn. Reciprocal Insurance Exchange [2014] O.J. No. 3007, June 23, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, M.Z. Charbonneau J.

Continue Reading...

What constitutes a claim for the purposes of the definition of “claim” under a policy of insurance is determined according to an objective test in light of the reality of what the third party communicated to the insured by words or conduct. This does not always require a specific threat of legal proceedings. In this case, a reasonable insured, in the context of the complaint, would have concluded that the complainant intended to hold the insured liable when he simply stated that the insured should cover his costs.

Hants Realty Ltd. v. Travelers Guarantee Co. of Canada [2014] N.S.J. No. 330, June 25, 2014, Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, L.L. Oland, D.P.S. Farrar and P. Bryson JJ.A.

Continue Reading...

Two or more errors, omissions or negligent acts are “related” for the purposes of a policy where there is a sufficient association or connection between them, reading the policy as a whole and bearing in mind its objective. In determining whether there is a sufficient association or connection, the court must consider the similarities and difference between the nature and kind of the alleged misconduct which underlies each claim, and the kind and character of the losses for which recovery is sought in each claim.

Simpson Wigle Law LLP v. Lawyers’ Professional Indemnity Co. [2014] O.J. No. 3037, June 25, 2014, Ontario Court of Appeal, E.E. Gillese, K.M. van Rensburg and C.W. Hourigan JJ.A.

Continue Reading...

Absolute pollution exclusion in commercial general liability policy precluded coverage for a claim arising from a spill of home heating oil.

Breton Petroleum Ltd. v. Aviva Insurance Co. of Canada, [2014] N.S.J. No. 298, June 16, 2014, Nova Scotia Supreme Court, K. Coady J.

Continue Reading...

This was a summary trial pursuant to s. 530 of the Insurance Act for judgment against the defendant's insurer. The insurer argued the farm policy was void ab initio because of non‑disclosure of a material fact or, in the alternative, the "business pursuits" exclusion clause applied. The Court dismissed the plaintiff's action because the "business pursuits" exclusion excluded coverage. The plaintiff was injured in the course of a horse riding lesson that was a "business pursuit" of the defendant insured.

Burch v. Intact Insurance Co., [2014] A.J. No. 540, May 20, 2014, Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, S.J. Greckol J.

Continue Reading...

The insurer denied coverage for water damage to the insured’s basement because it was caused by “continuous or repeated seepage”, which was an excluded risk. The court found that the insurer was incorrect in determining this to have been the cause of the water damage, and held that the exclusion did not apply to the loss. The court did not award punitive damages because the conduct of the insurer in denying the claim was only misguided and could not be descibed as malicious, oppressive or highanded.

Moffat v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co. [2014] O.J. No. 2124, April 25, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, B. Babcock Deputy J.

Continue Reading...

Pollution exclusion in homeowner's policy may not apply to circumstances where sound insulation releases noxious gas that renders the home uninhabitable.

Robinson v. Primmum Insurance Co., [2014] O.J. No. 487, January 31, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, A.D. Grace J.

Continue Reading...