The insured property owner appealed the dismissal of its claim for coverage following a wall collapse, while the insurer appealed the finding of coverage for a subsequent arson fire at the same vacant building.
The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals.
The wall collapse was not proven to be a fortuitous event.
For the fire loss, the insurer was bound by promissory estoppel preventing reliance on a vacancy exclusion, and its unilateral attempt to amend the policy to exclude arson was invalid under s. 124 of the Insurance Act for lack of written consent.
