The applicants sought a declaration that the respondent insurer owed a duty to defend the applicant business owner in three underlying actions arising from a fire.
The fire allegedly started when the business owner used an insured truck to boost a forklift.
The respondent argued that boosting a forklift was not an ordinary use or operation of a motor vehicle.
The court applied the test for duty to defend and the test for use or operation of a motor vehicle, finding that using a truck to boost another vehicle is an ordinary and well-known activity to which motor vehicles are put.
The court declared that the respondent owed a duty to defend and ordered it to pay a one-half share of past and ongoing defence costs.
