The appellant parents appealed the dismissal of their summary judgment motion seeking a declaration that their tenant's liability insurer owed them a defence and indemnity in an action arising from an assault committed by their sons.
Although the sons' intentional assault claims fell within the bodily injury exclusion, the court held the parents were separately insured under the policy and the negligence claim against them for failing to supervise and properly raise their children was a distinct, non-excluded claim.
The court distinguished the Supreme Court of Canada's duty-to-defend analysis in sexual assault pleadings because the negligence allegations here constituted a separate tort against different parties rather than a relabelling of intentional wrongdoing.
The insurer was therefore required to defend the parents and indemnify them for any covered judgment, costs and interest.
