1 total
Insurer's appeal dismissed; duty to defend upheld as statement of claim lacked intent to injure.
The appellant insurer appealed a decision finding it had a duty to defend the respondent.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the statement of claim did not allege an intent to injure, meaning the intentional act exclusion clause did not apply.
Furthermore, the respondent met the definition of an employee under the policy as he was engaged in cleaning the premises on behalf of the insured at the time of the incident.
