3 total
A mortgagee's insurance policy covers only its own interest and allows the insurer to subrogate against the defaulting mortgagor.
The appellants sought summary judgment to determine whether an insurance policy obtained by the mortgagees covered the mortgagors' interest in the property and whether the insurer could exercise subrogation rights.
The mortgagors had failed to obtain property insurance after their existing policy was cancelled.
The mortgagees obtained a policy in their own names covering only their mortgagee interest.
The motion judge dismissed the motion, finding that the policy was for the sole benefit of the mortgagees and that the mortgagees were entitled to pursue subrogation rights.
The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that Standard Charge Term 16 of the mortgage imposed the obligation to insure on the mortgagors and that any insurance obtained by the mortgagees was permissive and for their benefit alone.
Leave to appeal denied; motions judge's interpretation of commercial lease indemnity provision not open to serious debate.
The moving party, a commercial tenant, sought leave to appeal a decision dismissing its summary judgment motion.
The underlying motion sought an order requiring the respondent landlord to indemnify the tenant for a personal injury claim arising from a slip and fall on ice in a common area, pursuant to a commercial lease.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions and no reason to doubt the correctness of the motions judge's interpretation of the lease's indemnity and insurance provisions.
Tenant's motion for indemnification from landlord dismissed due to lease proviso requiring tenant to insure common areas.
The moving party tenant sought summary judgment ordering the respondent landlord to indemnify it for the costs of litigating a personal injury claim arising from a slip and fall in the mall's common area.
The landlord and its snow removal contractor had previously settled with the plaintiff via a Pierringer Agreement.
The court interpreted the indemnification and insurance provisions of the commercial lease.
The court found that the tenant was required to, and did, maintain insurance for the common areas, which triggered a proviso relieving the landlord of its duty to indemnify.
The motion for summary judgment was dismissed.
