Two ONCA decisions on property policy faulty workmanship exclusion, and limitation period for liability policy defence obligation

Federated Insurance Business Of Canada Had A Duty To Defend McKeown Wood In The Basic Action 2 ONCA Solutions On Property Policy Faulty Workmanship Exclusion And Limitation Period For Liability Policy Defence Obligation

Before Christmas, appeal Ontario Court released 2 various different choices of significance in respect of commercial/homeowners' liability and property coverages, in addition to the 'previously posted' Carneiro Durham solution. On December 2015, 23rd and in Monk Farmers' Mutual Insurance Co. Court set aside the motion judge's finding that the uniquelyworded faulty workmanship exclusion in a property policy applied to exclude the plaintiff insured homeowner's claim for damage caused by a contractor all along renovation work.

That said, the Court held the more reasonable narrow exclusion interpretation was not to know that it excludes resulting damage. The Court held that in case the insurer wished to exclude such damage, it must do explicitly, while it did not make an exception for such damage as did another exclusion. Of course that exclusion is interpreted broadly, and. Which is to be construed broadly, must not be interpreted narrowly. Basically, the Court as a result held that in this policy resulting damage to insured property is covered with the help of the policy whether or not that damage is faulty consequence workmanship.

The Court returned the matter to the motion judge to address the limitation defence raised with the help of the insurer but not addressed by the motion judge thanks to his conclusion on the exclusion. The Court held that the correctness standard for appellate review applied per its latest McDonald Chicago headline solution.

Generally, and, in Daverne John Switzer Fuels Ltd. December 24th, the Court reversed the motion judge's granting of partial summary judgment in the 3rd party action to the insured, mcKeown Wood Limited or which declared that the appellant insurer, federated Insurance entrepreneur of Canada, had a duty to defend McKeown Wood in the primary action. The motion judge had dismissed Federated's crossmotion for summary judgment to dismiss the 3-rd party action against it based on the contractual limitation period in Federated's insurance policy. The Court held the motion judge erred in finding that the 'one year' limitation period set out in Federated's insurance policy was not enforceable against the insured cause it was a buziness agreement and the policy adequately addressed making the limitation applicable, and it did not matter that this was a '3rd party' liability after a firstparty property claim as in the Court of Appeal's earlier Boyce Co Operators conclusion, right after stating that appellate standard review was correctness. It is the Court held that the loss is suffered from when the insurer refuses to satisfy its defence obligation,. Notice, there is no discussion about whether there is a rolling limitation for a variety of defence cost accounts. Another question is. Can one infer from this choice that this argument should not be accepted? In the output, the Court noted that whether a defence was owed under the policy did not need to be addressed. It did go on to look for that whether indemnity is owed remains to be determined.