J. Norton

The applicant security company sought a declaration that it was an additional insured under a builder's risk insurance policy issued by the respondent to a construction company.

The applicant provided security services at a construction site that was vandalized and set on fire, leading to an underlying negligence action against the applicant.

The applicant argued it was a 'supplier' under the policy.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the plain and ordinary meaning of the policy clearly excluded suppliers who perform no construction work, thereby excluding the applicant.

The applicant obtained a default judgment against a contractor for defective sewer installation and sought to enforce the judgment directly against the contractor's insurer under s. 132 of the Insurance Act.

The insurer denied coverage because the contractor failed to report the claim for nine years, breaching the policy's prompt notice condition.

The court found that the insured breached the notice condition and declined to grant relief from forfeiture, concluding that the delay was unreasonable, substantial, and prejudiced the insurer's ability to investigate and pursue third-party claims.

The application was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion to compel answers to refusals and undertakings arising from an examination for discovery in an insurance coverage dispute following a parking garage collapse.

The defendant insurer resisted production of certain documents and adjuster notes on the basis of litigation privilege and solicitor‑client privilege.

The court determined that litigation privilege arose after an unequivocal threat of litigation made by the insured’s representative on July 20, 2010, and that documents created after that date were protected.

Several earlier communications reflecting legal advice from counsel were also protected by solicitor‑client privilege, while limited factual portions of adjuster notes were ordered produced.

The court partially required disclosure of non‑privileged factual information but otherwise upheld the insurer’s privilege claims.