The appellant's greenhouse tomato crop was destroyed by excessive carbon monoxide emissions resulting from a malfunctioning boiler and monitor.
The respondent insurer denied coverage, relying on the policy's exhaust gas exclusion and machinery breakdown exception.
The motion judge granted summary judgment to the respondent.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred in his causation analysis by focusing solely on the immediate cause of the loss (carbon monoxide) rather than determining the effective cause or causes in a series of events.
The motion judge also erred by failing to address the onus of proof and make necessary factual findings regarding the machinery breakdown exception.
The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for trial, as genuine issues remained regarding causation and the application of policy exclusions.
