Chris Borgal

The insured property owner appealed the dismissal of its claim for coverage following a wall collapse, while the insurer appealed the finding of coverage for a subsequent arson fire at the same vacant building.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals.

The wall collapse was not proven to be a fortuitous event.

For the fire loss, the insurer was bound by promissory estoppel preventing reliance on a vacancy exclusion, and its unilateral attempt to amend the policy to exclude arson was invalid under s. 124 of the Insurance Act for lack of written consent.

The plaintiffs sought coverage under their commercial property insurance policies for a wall collapse and a subsequent arson fire that destroyed their heritage building.

The insurer denied coverage for both claims, relying on wear and tear exclusions for the wall collapse and a vacancy exclusion for the fire.

The court dismissed the wall collapse claim, finding the plaintiffs failed to prove it was caused by a fortuitous event.

However, the court granted the fire loss claim, holding that the insurer's unilateral amendments to the policy were void under s. 124 of the Insurance Act and that the insurer was estopped from relying on the vacancy exclusion because it renewed the policy and accepted increased premiums with full knowledge that the building was vacant.

The plaintiffs were awarded over $5.8 million in damages.

A concurrent negligence claim against the plaintiffs' insurance brokers was dismissed.