2 total
Insurer liable for covered oil-spill losses after exclusion and proof-of-loss defences failed.
In an insurance coverage trial arising from an oil spill in a mixed-use commercial building, the court addressed policy exclusions, proof-of-loss compliance, waiver, and quantification of property and business interruption damages.
The court held the insurer could not rely on late-raised proof-of-loss and appraisal defences given waiver language in the adjuster correspondence and pleading conduct, and rejected reliance on exclusions for pollution and mechanical or electrical breakdown on the evidentiary record.
The court accepted that extensive structural remediation was reasonable and necessary, and assessed repair costs using expert-supported mid-range estimates.
The court also awarded limited relocation and rental loss damages under policy terms, while declining consequential damages beyond the pleaded contractual claim.
Total assessed damages were $68,485, subject to potential adjustment based on settlement terms with a former co-defendant.
Appeal and cross-appeal allowed to correct errors in equalization payment calculations regarding RRSPs, pension, and deductions.
The appellant wife appealed and the respondent husband cross-appealed the trial judge's equalization payment calculation.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge erred in valuing the wife's RRSPs and the husband's pension, and substituted values based on the evidence.
The Court also allowed the cross-appeal, finding the trial judge erred in denying the husband deductions for pre-marriage equity in a home, credit card debts, and costs awards.
The wife was awarded $15,000 in trial costs.
