2 total
Insurer has no duty to defend where underlying claims arise from a family dispute, not business conduct.
The insurer appealed a decision finding it had a duty to defend the respondent in an action brought by his daughter and son-in-law.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the policy only covered personal injuries 'arising out of the conduct of your business'.
The underlying statement of claim alleged a family matter, and the mere fact that the plaintiffs were employed in the business was insufficient to trigger the duty to defend.
Summary judgment set aside where motion judge reversed the onus and decided novel claims on assumed facts.
The appellant bank sued several financial institutions and insurers for approximately $100 million arising from a massive equipment leasing fraud involving forged endorsements.
The respondent financial institutions successfully moved for summary judgment dismissing the appellant's claims for negligence, unjust enrichment, and money had and received.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the summary judgment, finding that the motion judge committed two fundamental errors: reversing the onus by requiring the responding party to establish a genuine issue for trial, and deciding the motions on the assumed fact that the endorsements were forged.
The Court ordered the entire action to proceed to trial, noting that novel claims should be decided on a full evidentiary record.
