4 total
Appeal dismissed; limitation period for breach of contract commenced when water damage occurred, not upon invoice refusal.
The appellant, a general contractor, appealed a summary judgment dismissing its breach of contract action against a sprinkler system subcontractor as statute-barred.
The appellant argued the limitation period began when the respondent refused to pay an invoice for repair costs under a 'save harmless' clause, rather than when the water damage occurred 3.5 years prior to the lawsuit.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's finding that the cause of action arose, and was discovered, when the water damage occurred and the appellant put the respondent on notice of its responsibility.
Undifferentiated allegations insufficient to impose personal liability on employee broker.
The individual insurance broker brought a Rule 21 motion to strike the statement of claim against him in an action alleging negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, misrepresentation, and breach of contract arising from alleged failure to obtain adequate insurance coverage.
The court held that employees may be personally liable only where their conduct is independently tortious or sufficiently distinct from the employer’s conduct.
The pleading contained undifferentiated allegations against “the broker and/or” the individual employee and failed to identify specific acts attributable to the employee.
As the material facts supporting personal liability were not properly pleaded, the claim against the individual broker disclosed no reasonable cause of action.
The claim against the employee was therefore struck, with leave to amend.
Pollution exclusion barred coverage for waste oil spill damage.
The applicants sought a declaration that their insurer owed a duty to defend them in an underlying action brought by their landlord alleging damage caused by a spill of waste oil at leased premises.
The landlord claimed clean‑up costs, repair expenses, and economic losses from delayed re‑leasing.
The insurer denied coverage relying on a pollution exclusion in the commercial liability policy.
The court held that “property damage” in the policy included physical injury to real property and that all damages claimed flowed from the spill of a pollutant.
As the pollution exclusion applied, the insurer had no duty to defend.
Court approved $1 million advance payment to disabled plaintiff over co-defendant's objection.
The plaintiffs sought court approval for an advance payment of $1 million (the insurance policy limits) from one set of defendants to a plaintiff under disability.
A co-defendant opposed the approval, arguing the payment would only benefit the plaintiffs' counsel to fund ongoing litigation and that the Insurance Act did not contemplate such a payment without an admission of liability.
The court rejected these arguments, finding no prejudice to the co-defendant and concluding that the advance payment would benefit the plaintiff.
The court approved the advance payment and awarded costs to the plaintiffs.
