The plaintiff was seriously injured when a snowmobile track shredded while the defendants were attempting to start it.
The defendants sought a declaration that their automobile insurer (TD) and their property insurer (Germania) had a duty to defend the negligence action.
The motion judge found that TD had a duty to defend, as the injuries arose from the ownership, use, or operation of a motor vehicle, and that Germania did not, as its policy excluded such claims.
TD appealed, arguing the motion judge erred in admitting affidavit evidence regarding coverage preconditions and in finding a duty to defend.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the affidavit evidence was properly admitted as it only affected coverage and not liability, and that the negligence claims were inextricably linked to the use and operation of the snowmobile, thus falling within TD's coverage and Germania's exclusion clause.
