Pino Cianfarani

The appellant contractor scratched approximately 180 windows while performing cleaning services at a newly constructed commercial building and reimbursed the building owner about $134,000 for the damage.

It sought indemnification under its commercial general liability policy, but the insurer denied coverage relying on “your work” exclusions.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the action.

The Court of Appeal held that the occurrence causing the property damage was the scratching of the windows during the cleaning operation and that the damage arose out of the insured’s work.

Because the property damage fell squarely within the policy’s exclusions, coverage was properly denied and the appeal was dismissed.

A former solicitor brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing a professional negligence claim arising from an alleged failure to pursue statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The plaintiff alleged the solicitor negligently failed to challenge the insurer’s termination of income replacement benefits within the two-year limitation period under the Insurance Act.

The court found the insurer had abandoned any limitation defence and that the benefits had not actually terminated during the solicitor’s retainer.

Claims relating to attendant care and housekeeping benefits were also untenable because the solicitor was retained more than 104 weeks after the accident, beyond the maximum eligibility period under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

In addition, the plaintiff had produced no expert evidence regarding the applicable standard of care for professional negligence.

The action against the solicitor was dismissed on summary judgment.