Windstorm? Take Cover(age)!

The court weighed competing expert evidence tendered by the insured and the insurer, ultimately siding with the insured’s expert because the insurer’s expert failed to consider all sources of evidence.

Insurance law – Property insurance – Interpretation of policy – Exclusion clauses – Evidence – Expert evidence

Hood v. Aviva Insurance Co. of Canada, [2025] O.J. No. 1459, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, March 19, 2025, W.D. Newton R.S.J.

At issue in this case was whether the insured had established that damage to his cabin was caused by an insured peril (a windstorm) or whether the insurer had established that the damage was instead caused by settling, an excluded peril. Witness evidence confirmed high winds in the area a few days prior to when the damage was discovered which resulted in downed trees and furniture blown across properties. The insurer relied on expert evidence to argue the cabin had fallen off its foundation as a result of the ground settling underneath the foundation.

The applicable policy did not define “windstorm,” so the Court applied the ordinary dictionary definition. After comparing differing factual evidence relating to the cause of the loss, the Court ultimately found the insured’s evidence, which was mainly witness testimony and expert evidence which considered local weather reports, was more persuasive and concluded that the cause of the loss was a windstorm and not settling. Detrimental to the insurer’s argument was that their expert admitted that he did not take into consideration any of the information provided by the local residents with respect to wind or damage.

This case was digested by Jaeda Lee and edited by Steven W. Abramson of Harper Grey LLP and first published in the LexisNexis® Harper Grey Insurance Law Netletter and the Harper Grey Insurance Law Newsletter. If you would like to discuss this case further, please feel free to contact them directly at [email protected] or [email protected].