3 total
The court granted summary judgment to the insurers, finding the retroactive date exclusion barred coverage.
Puri Professional Corporation (Puri PC) sought coverage under an errors and omissions insurance policy from Lloyd’s Underwriters and The Sovereign General Insurance Company (the Insurers) for a client's negligence claim related to tax advice.
The Insurers moved for summary judgment to dismiss Puri PC's claim, arguing the alleged wrongful acts occurred before the policy's retroactive date.
Puri PC brought a cross-motion for summary judgment, seeking a declaration of coverage, arguing a clerical error in the application should be rectified.
The court granted the Insurers' motion for summary judgment, dismissing Puri PC's claim, finding the retroactive date exclusion clearly applied and rectification was not warranted as the alleged acts occurred well before the policy's retroactive date.
Summary judgment was granted dismissing an insurance claim for a collapsed roof due to a frost exclusion.
The defendant, Lloyd's Underwriters, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss an action by the plaintiff, 2689686 Ontario Inc., concerning a roof collapse at a property insured under a Builder's Risk policy.
The court found that the loss was caused by frost and heaving, a peril explicitly excluded by the policy.
The plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence to counter the defendant's expert opinion or establish an exception to the exclusion.
Consequently, the court granted summary judgment, dismissing the action against Lloyd's Underwriters.
Amendment denied because the proposed claim was out of time.
The plaintiff moved for leave to amend a slip and fall statement of claim to add two additional defendants allegedly involved in snow removal at the premises.
The motion turned on whether the claim against the proposed defendants was discovered, or reasonably discoverable, more than two years before service of the amendment motion.
The court held that even on the most generous view of discoverability, the limitation period expired before the motion was served.
Section 21(2) of the Limitations Act, 2002 barred the addition of the proposed defendants, and the motion was dismissed.
