4 total
Application for insurance coverage dismissed as security company was not a supplier performing construction work.
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.
Competing 'other insurance' clauses found irreconcilable; insurers ordered to contribute equally to defence and indemnity.
The applicant insurer sought a declaration that the respondent insurer was required to contribute equally to the defence and indemnification of a pharmacist in an underlying negligence action.
Both insurers had issued policies covering the pharmacist, and both policies contained 'other insurance' clauses stating their coverage was excess to any other valid insurance.
The court found that both policies provided primary coverage for the same risk at the same layer.
Applying the principles of equitable contribution, the court concluded that the competing 'other insurance' clauses were irreconcilable.
Consequently, the respondent was ordered to share equally in the costs of defending and indemnifying the insured.
Direct action against insurer dismissed; relief from forfeiture denied due to nine-year delay in reporting claim.
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.
Summary judgment granted; red‑light violation established sole liability for collision.
The moving defendants sought summary judgment dismissing a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle collision.
The motion judge considered the enhanced summary judgment powers under Rule 20 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and applied the “full appreciation test” articulated in Combined Air Mechanical Services v. Flesch.
Evidence included affidavits, cross‑examinations, and a prior guilty plea by one defendant to disobeying a red traffic signal.
The court held that the plea and consistent witness evidence established that the responding driver entered the intersection against a red light and was solely responsible for the collision.
Finding no genuine issue requiring a trial and no real chance of success against the moving defendants, the court granted summary judgment dismissing the action against them.
