The applicant, a surveillance services provider, sought an order compelling its insurers to provide a defence to an underlying action alleging criminal harassment, conspiracy, and negligence related to surveillance, and an automobile incident.
The applicant also sought reimbursement of defence expenses and the right to choose its own counsel.
The court found that the negligence claims related to surveillance were not derivative of intentional torts and triggered the Commercial General Liability (CGL) policy's duty to defend.
The court also found that the non-owned automobile (NOA) policy triggered a duty to defend for the auto claims, as the policy's language was broad and not limited to rental cars.
However, the court denied the applicant's request to choose its own counsel, affirming the insurers' contractual right to control the defence in the absence of a conflict of interest.
