The court dismissed Smitten Baby Products Inc.'s action against FirstOnSite Restoration Limited (FOS), holding that FOS, as an insurance investigator retained by the insurer, did not owe a duty of care to the insured, Smitten Baby.
The decision reviews the requirements for establishing a duty of care in cases of pure economic loss, finding that Smitten Baby failed to plead facts establishing a proximate relationship or reasonable reliance.
The court also found that the statement of claim did not adequately plead causation.
Even if a prima facie duty of care could be established, policy considerations would negate it.
The motion for partial summary judgment was dismissed as moot.
