3 total
The court dismissed an additional insured's claim for coverage, finding its liability did not arise from the contractor's operations.
Sky Solar, a solar energy project developer, sued its contractor's insurer (Economical) and insurance broker (FCA) after two fires involving transformers at its solar projects.
Sky Solar was an additional insured under the contractor's commercial general liability (CGL) policy.
After the second fire, Sky Solar settled with the project buyer (Firelight) for remediation costs and lost income, then sought indemnity from Economical.
Economical denied coverage, arguing Sky Solar's liability did not arise from the contractor's operations and that Sky Solar breached a policy condition by settling without consent.
Sky Solar also claimed negligence and bad faith against FCA for issuing certificates of insurance.
The court dismissed Sky Solar's action against both Economical and FCA, finding no coverage under the policy and no breach of duty by the broker.
Summary judgment granted
The defendants, a builder (Park Avenue) and a developer (739), moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' action for declarations, specific performance, and damages related to the termination of pre-construction home agreements.
The plaintiffs, five buyers, alleged breach of good faith, honest performance, and negligence.
The court found that Park Avenue made reasonable efforts and acted in good faith to satisfy an early termination condition (obtaining a Cost Sharing Agreement, CSA) despite delays caused by a third-party developer.
The court also determined that 739, the developer, did not owe a duty of care to the purchasers due to a lack of proximity.
Even if a breach of contract by Park Avenue had occurred, the court concluded that the agreements would have been lawfully terminated anyway, resulting in no damages.
Summary judgment was granted in favour of the defendants, dismissing the plaintiffs' action.
The court case-managed five consolidated actions, setting security for costs and directing videoconference discoveries.
This endorsement addresses eight related motions in five consolidated actions stemming from uncompleted real estate transactions.
The court case-managed the proceedings, resolving most motions by agreement or direction.
The primary substantive dispute adjudicated concerned the quantum of security for costs to be paid by the plaintiffs, Gui Zhao and Juanli Liu, to the defendant Qing Hui, which the court set at $27,000, a figure between the parties' proposals.
Other motions, including those for discovery and to strike a cross-claim, were adjourned sine die with directions for future resolution or agreement.
