Mr. Szirt

The plaintiff's poultry processing plant was destroyed by fire and was significantly underinsured because the original insurance application understated the building's size.

The plaintiff sued her insurance broker and the insurer.

The insurer brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the claims against it, arguing it owed no duty of care to inform the insured or the broker of the size discrepancy it discovered during a subsequent property inspection.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that conflicting evidence regarding the purpose of the inspection and the parties' reliance required a full trial to determine whether a novel duty of care existed under the Anns/Cooper framework.

The appellants appealed a Master's decision granting summary judgment to the third-party insurer, striking the appellants' third-party claim.

The Master concluded that the plaintiff's claim against the appellants fell outside the insuring agreement because the appellants were acting as a general contractor rather than a building material wholesaler, and the damages did not result from an accident.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the allegations clearly related to the appellants' activities as a contractor and that foundation settlement due to inadequate soil conditions could not reasonably be characterized as an accident.