J.P. Mangano

The applicant sought reimbursement of defence costs and a declaration that the respondent insurers owed a duty to defend an underlying action alleging damages from an oil spill at a residence.

The dispute turned on the interpretation of a contractors’ pollution liability policy requiring that covered operations commence on or after the retroactive date to trigger coverage.

The court held that the policy language unambiguously tied coverage to the timing of the insured’s operations rather than the pollution incident.

Because the alleged operations occurred before the retroactive date, the insured failed to establish that the claim fell within the grant of coverage.

The application was dismissed and the insurers were found to have no duty to defend.

The applicant sought indemnification from an insurer for defence costs incurred in a slip and fall action where the applicant had been added as an additional insured under a contractor’s liability policy.

The respondent insurer argued that the claim was statute‑barred under the Limitations Act, 2002 and that it had no duty to defend the applicant for claims outside the contractor’s policy coverage.

The court held that where there is no clear and unequivocal denial of coverage, the limitation period for a claim for indemnity for defence costs begins when the underlying action is resolved by judgment or settlement.

Applying the “true nature of the claim” analysis to the pleadings and discovery evidence, the court found the essence of the underlying action was negligence in snow and ice removal performed by the insured contractor.

As a result, the insurer owed a duty to indemnify the additional insured for its defence costs.