In Honeywell International Inc. v XL Insurance Company Ltd., the British Columbia Court of Appeal ( “BCCA”) overturned an application judge’s decision. The BCCA found in favour of an appellant manufacturer seeking a defence under a liability policy placed in relation to a construction project (commonly known as a “wrap up policy”). The BCCA found that the manufacturer qualified as an insured under the policy and directed a trial of several other coverage issues not yet decided.

In a recent decision, the British Columbia Court of Appeal (“BCCA”) interpreted a clause that excluded loss or damage caused directly or indirectly by “subsidence”. The court upheld the trial judge’s finding that the clause was unambiguously worded and clearly excluded coverage for the loss. In addition, the BCCA also agreed with the trial judge’s finding that the policy’s Extended Water Damage Endorsement did not extend coverage on the facts of the case.

In Truong v Jeweler’s Mutual Insurance Company, the Court of Appeal for Ontario upheld a trial judge’s decision, finding no reversible error in the judge’s decision that the insurer’s conduct amounted to bad faith and warranted an award of punitive damages.

In a recent decision, the Ontario Court of Appeal had to determine whether the trial judge erred in finding that an insurer underpaid its insured for damaged personal property. The ONCA dismissed the insurer’s appeal, refusing to interfere with the trial judge’s assessment of the value of the insured’s claim or with his conclusion that the insurer had waived performance with a clause in the policy requiring the insured to provide a sworn “proof of loss” form.

In a recent decision, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (ONSC) considered the applicability of a prior acts exclusion within a directors and officers liability insurance policy for a claim brought against a company that later filed for protection under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”). The ONSC found that the claim pertained to events that preceded the policy period, which the endorsement excluded.

In a recent decision, the Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court (NLSC) refused to compel the insured to engage in an appraisal of a loss under a property insurance policy. Due in large part to an apparent policy drafting error, the NLSC rejected the insurer’s argument that the appraisal process was mandatory.

In Peters v Great-West Life Assurance Company, 2024 NSCA 21, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal (NSCA) held against the insured on an application brought to settle the pre-judgment interest amount for a claim arising from the death of the insured’s husband. At contention was the determination of when the cause of action arose respecting claims for accidental death benefits as this informed when the insurer’s obligation to pay pre-judgment interest began. The NSCA rejected the insured’s argument that the cause of action arose upon the denial of coverage following the insured’s initial demand for payment. Instead, the NSCA upheld the hearing judge’s determination that the cause of action arose when the insurer received evidence of accidental death and as, by law, a thirty-day grace period applied, the insurer’s obligation to pay pre-judgment interest began once the grace period expired.

The Ontario Court of Appeal has ruled in Truscott v Co-operators General Insurance Company, 2023 ONCA 267, that the appraisal process under Ontario’s Insurance Act may be iterative. Where the parties limit the appraisal, the award that results need not decide the entire valuation dispute between the parties.

In Gill v The Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company, the British Columbia Court of Appeal was tasked with determining what parts of a home are “within the dwelling” when interpreting coverage provisions in a homeowner’s insurance policy. In overturning the decision below, the Court found that the trial judge appeared to interpret the policy from the perspective of an average person that was “erroneously disconnected from the language of the policy.” It held that, in interpreting the ordinary meaning of policy language, the Court must consider the policy from the perspective of an average person purchasing insurance.