Mark William Barrett

The applicant, a land surveying company, sought indemnification from the respondent insurance company under a professional liability insurance policy for a settlement payment of $3,200,000.00 relating to the Halton Claim.

The respondent had already paid $5,000,000.00 under the policy for an unrelated Port Lands Claim.

The court determined that the Halton Claim fell within the policy's coverage, that it was covered under the first policy period based on when the applicant first received notice of the claim, and that the applicant did not breach its duty to cooperate with the insurer.

The court ordered full indemnification of the settlement amount plus costs.

Great American Insurance Company appealed a judgment finding it had a duty to defend the City of Thunder Bay against claims related to property damage from sodium hydroxide in the water supply.

Great American argued a lead exclusion in its policy precluded coverage.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that a section of the lead exclusion was ambiguous, thus triggering the duty to defend based on the "mere possibility" of coverage, as per *Progressive Homes Ltd. v. Lombard General Insurance Co. of Canada*.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondents.

Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company sought a declaration that it had no duty to defend or indemnify Dave Watson in three negligence actions arising from a boating accident.

Watson, the insured, conceded no duty to indemnify but argued Wawanesa had a duty to defend and had waived its right to refuse defence.

The court found that Wawanesa had a duty to defend based on the "pleadings rule" and the doctrine of waiver, but no duty to indemnify.

Wawanesa was ordered to resume providing a defence.

This decision addresses two consolidated applications seeking a declaration that Great American Insurance Company (GAIC) has a duty to defend the City of Thunder Bay in multiple actions concerning "pinhole leaks" in water pipes.

GAIC denied coverage, relying on a lead exclusion clause.

The court found the lead exclusion ambiguous and, applying the "mere possibility" test, determined that GAIC failed to prove the exclusion clearly and unambiguously applied to the claims, which primarily alleged negligence related to the introduction of sodium hydroxide, not lead.

The court declared GAIC obliged to defend the City.

The plaintiff initiated an action against "Can-Sure Underwriting," a managing general agent, for an insurance coverage dispute, mistakenly believing it to be the insurer.

The plaintiff brought a motion to correct this misnomer by adding the actual subscribing insurers as defendants.

Concurrently, the defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing the claim was time-barred by a one-year contractual limitation period and that it was not the proper defendant.

The court dismissed the defendant's summary judgment motion, finding a genuine issue for trial regarding promissory estoppel, as the defendant's agent had previously advised the plaintiff of a two-year limitation period, leading to reliance.

The court granted the plaintiff's misnomer motion, concluding that the intended defendants (subscribing insurers) had actual knowledge of the claim from its inception and suffered no prejudice from the delay in formal naming, especially given the contradictory information provided by the defendant.