The applicant sought reimbursement of defence costs and a declaration that the respondent insurers owed a duty to defend an underlying action alleging damages from an oil spill at a residence.
The dispute turned on the interpretation of a contractors’ pollution liability policy requiring that covered operations commence on or after the retroactive date to trigger coverage.
The court held that the policy language unambiguously tied coverage to the timing of the insured’s operations rather than the pollution incident.
Because the alleged operations occurred before the retroactive date, the insured failed to establish that the claim fell within the grant of coverage.
The application was dismissed and the insurers were found to have no duty to defend.
