DATE: 20060131

DOCKET: C41718

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

RE:

AT PLASTICS INC. (Plaintiff/Respondent) – and – ACE INA INSURANCE formerly known as Cigna Insurance Company of Canada (Defendant/Appellant)

BEFORE:

GILLES, BLAIR and JURIANSZ JJ.A.

COUNSEL:

Robert J. Clayton

for the appellant

Lawrence G. Theall and Jeffrey J. Brown

for the respondent

HEARD & ENDORSED:

January 27, 2006

On appeal from the judgment of Justice H. J. Wilton‑Siegel of the Superior Court of Justice dated March 30, 2004.

A P P E A L B O O K E N D O R S E M E N T

[1] The appellant argues that the trial judge erred in concluding that:

(1) the respondent insured’s 5R production facility was a separate location; and

(2) only one accident occurred.

(1) Separate Location

[2] We see no error in the trial judge’s finding that, on a plain reading of Endorsement No. 8, the parties added the facility as a separate location under the policy and that the appellant is bound by that wording.

(2) One Accident or Two

[3] Both sides agree that there was an “Accident” within the meaning of the policy. In our view, the respondent is correct when he argues that the accidental breakdown continued until the “Object”, which was the compressor, was repaired. Repair did not occur until the second attempt had been completed successfully. Therefore, there was only one accident.

[4] As we agree with the Judgment under appeal, the appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent fixed at $20,000, inclusive of disbursements and GST.