COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

DATE: 20000224

DOCKET: C30439

RE: PAN-OSTON LTD. (Plaintiff/Appellant) v. BOWES & COCKS INSURANCE BROKERS LIMITED and DAVID KOPONEN (Defendants/Respondents)

BEFORE: FINLAYSON, LABROSSE and GOUDGE JJ.A.

COUNSEL: Robert L. Falby, Q.C.,
for the appellant

Barry B. Papazian, Q.C. and
Andrew B. Forrest,
for the respondents

HEARD: February 22, 2000

On appeal from the decision of Mr. Justice S. J. Murphy dated
July 24, 1998

E N D O R S E M E N T

[1] The appellant's claim for damages against the respondent for
the failure to have business interruption coverage ("B.I."
coverage) was dismissed by the trial judge.

[2] Although critical of certain aspects of the respondent's
performance, the trial judge, on certain crucial issues, made
findings of fact which were favourable to the respondent.

[3] It was pleaded in the statement of claim that once yearly,
from 1989 to 1992, the respondent recommended that the appellant
obtain B.I. coverage. The trial judge found that the respondent,
on a number of occasions, discussed the need for B.I. coverage.
The trial judge specifically found that Joan Brinson knew in May
1992 that there was no B.I. coverage and that she told Mr.
Laitila, the president of the appellant company.

[4] The trial judge also found that controller Hill knew that
there was no B.I. coverage in February 1993. The trial judge
found that at that time, the respondent did discuss B.I. coverage
with Mr. Hill. In July 1993 Mr. Hill requested a quotation of
the premium from the respondent. The required business income
work sheets had not yet been completed by Mr. Hill on the date of
the fire.

[5] We see no basis to interfere with the trial judge's
conclusion that there was no breach of duty on the part of the
respondent.

[6] The appeal is dismissed with costs.

(signed) "G. D. Finlayson J.A."
(signed) "J. M. Labrosse J.A."
(signed) "S. T. Goudge J.A."