The defendant municipality brought a motion seeking declarations that a contractor’s insurer owed it a duty to defend in a slip‑and‑fall action arising from alleged negligent winter sidewalk maintenance.
The court held that the pleadings test governs the duty to defend and that where allegations, if proven, could fall within policy coverage, the insurer must provide a defence.
Because the statement of claim alleged negligence related to snow removal operations covered by the policy and the municipality was a named insured, the insurer’s duty to defend was triggered.
The court further found a conflict of interest due to counterclaims between the defendants and the insurer’s earlier denial of coverage, entitling the municipality to independent counsel at the insurer’s expense.
The insurer was also ordered to reimburse the municipality’s past defence costs.
