Insurance Law Blog
Knowledge Centre

Wrapping up the duty to defend

May 11, 2021

Insurance law – Liability insurance – Wrap up policies – Property damage – Duty to defend – Exclusions – Construction development – Duties and liabilities of insurer

GFL Infrastructure Group Inc. v. Temple Insurance Co., [2021] O.J. No. 1538, 2021 ONSC 1909, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, March 23, 2021, P.M. Perell J.

The insureds were subcontractors for the construction of a condominium building. The insurer issued a wrap up liability policy for the building. The condominium owners commenced an action after several deficiencies were identified as part of a warranty audit. The insurer denied coverage to the insureds on the basis that the claims did not constitute “property damage”, or were excluded through the faulty workmanship exclusion or “own work” exclusion.

The insurer argued that the pleadings had been particularized and expanded by several expert reports, which supported the insurer’s argument that the claims were not genuinely property damage claims, or were excluded. The Court noted that CGL policies do not generally cover the cost of repairing the insured’s own defective work product, and that it might ultimately be determined that none of the alleged property damage claims were proven. However, that was not the test for the duty to defend. The pleadings revealed the possibility of claims against the insureds for property damage, which is all that was required for the duty to defend to be triggered. The Court confirmed that it was not appropriate to make findings of fact regarding expert reports on an application for a duty to defend.

This case was digested by Joe Antifaev, 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 contact Joe Antifaev at [email protected].

To stay current with the new case law and emerging legal issues in this area, subscribe here.

Tags

Expertise

Important Notice: The information contained in this Article is intended for general information purposes only and does not create a lawyer-client relationship. It is not intended as legal advice from Harper Grey LLP or the individual author(s), nor intended as a substitute for legal advice on any specific subject matter. Detailed legal counsel should be sought prior to undertaking any legal matter. The information contained in this Article is current to the last update and may change. Last Update: May 11, 2021.

Related

Norm Streu co-authors article for Construction Business magazine
Norm Streu co-authors article for Construction Business magazine Norm Streu co-authors article for Construction Business magazine
New benchmark for damages for injury to dignity for sexual harassment
New benchmark for damages for injury to dignity for sexual harassment New benchmark for damages for injury to dignity for sexual harassment
Damages Awarded Under Intimate Images Act
Damages Awarded Under Intimate Images Act Damages Awarded Under Intimate Images Act
Retail Case Update: The Court’s View on Post-Accident Remedial Measures – Are They Determinative of Liability?
Retail Case Update: The Court’s View on Post-Accident Remedial Measures – Are They Determinative of Liability? Retail Case Update: The Court’s View on Post-Accident Remedial Measures – Are They Determinative of Liability? Retail Case Update: The Court’s View on Post-Accident Remedial Measures – Are They Determinative of Liability?
The Dangers of Two Step Offers
The Dangers of Two Step Offers The Dangers of Two Step Offers
Court says federal political parties are subject to BC privacy legislation
Court says federal political parties are subject to BC privacy legislation Court says federal political parties are subject to BC privacy legislation
Court Grants Interim Injunction to Restrain Employees from Competing with their Former Employer
Court Grants Interim Injunction to Restrain Employees from Competing with their Former Employer Court Grants Interim Injunction to Restrain Employees from Competing with their Former Employer
Harper Grey Lawyers complete Mental Health First Aid Certification
Harper Grey Lawyers complete Mental Health First Aid Certification
Defining the Scope of the Cost Recovery Action Under BC’s Environmental Management Act
Defining the Scope of the Cost Recovery Action Under BC’s Environmental Management Act Defining the Scope of the Cost Recovery Action Under BC’s Environmental Management Act Defining the Scope of the Cost Recovery Action Under BC’s Environmental Management Act
Roshni Veerapen elected as Vice Chair of the Health Law Section
Roshni Veerapen elected as Vice Chair of the Health Law Section Roshni Veerapen elected as Vice Chair of the Health Law Section
Court of Appeal finds insurer has duty to defend insured in claim arising from leak of liquid chlorine from its premises despite pollution liability exclusion
Court of Appeal finds insurer has duty to defend insured in claim arising from leak of liquid chlorine from its premises despite pollution liability exclusion Court of Appeal finds insurer has duty to defend insured in claim arising from leak of liquid chlorine from its premises despite pollution liability exclusion Court of Appeal finds insurer has duty to defend insured in claim arising from leak of liquid chlorine from its premises despite pollution liability exclusion
National Indigenous History Month
National Indigenous History Month
Emilie LeDuc appointed to the British Columbia Law Institute Board of Directors
Emilie LeDuc appointed to the British Columbia Law Institute Board of Directors Emilie LeDuc appointed to the British Columbia Law Institute Board of Directors
William Clark and Kara Hill present at the 2024 Self Governing Professions CLE
William Clark and Kara Hill present at the 2024 Self Governing Professions CLE William Clark and Kara Hill present at the 2024 Self Governing Professions CLE William Clark and Kara Hill present at the 2024 Self Governing Professions CLE
A party’s deliberate decision not to attend a hearing does not render that hearing procedurally unfair
A party’s deliberate decision not to attend a hearing does not render that hearing procedurally unfair A party’s deliberate decision not to attend a hearing does not render that hearing procedurally unfair
arrow icon

Subscribe