The insured brought a motion for a determination that its insurer had a duty to defend it in an action arising from the sale of a commercial building containing asbestos.
The insured also sought an order allowing it to select its own counsel due to a potential conflict of interest.
The court found that the underlying statement of claim alleged both intentional misconduct and negligence, and that the negligence claim was not derivative.
Therefore, the insurer had a duty to defend.
However, the court dismissed the request for independent counsel, finding no reasonable apprehension of a conflict of interest that would disentitle the insurer from its right to control the defence and appoint counsel.
