Umberto Agostino

The plaintiff, J.I.L.M. Enterprises & Investments Limited, sought costs following a successful trial where it was awarded damages for breach of an insurance contract and punitive damages against INTACT Insurance.

The plaintiff requested substantial indemnity costs of approximately $350,000 for fees and $124,000 for disbursements.

The defendant, INTACT, argued for partial indemnity costs, a reduction for secretarial time, improper claims, and a 25% discount for divided success.

The court awarded the plaintiff costs on a partial indemnity basis, fixing fees at $210,000 plus HST, and disbursements and taxes on disbursements at $115,000, after considering the complexity, importance of issues, and a modest reduction for divided success on certain claims.

The court issued an addendum to clarify a previous judgment following a teleconference with counsel.

The reasons were modified to specify that the replacement cost owing by the insurer is payable upon satisfactory proof that the actual cash value (ACV) funds have been expended for rebuilding or replacement.

The plaintiff's motel/restaurant complex was partially destroyed by fire, leading to an insurance claim with INTACT.

The insurer delayed payment for nearly three years, driven by an unsubstantiated arson investigation and adversarial conduct, including misleading Crime Stoppers ads.

The plaintiff sued for breach of contract, replacement cost, lost profits, and punitive damages for bad faith.

The court found INTACT breached its duty of good faith by prolonging the investigation without reasonable grounds and delaying payment.

The plaintiff was awarded an increased replacement cost (conditional on rebuilding), lost profits for the period of delay, and significant punitive damages for the insurer's high-handed conduct.

Following a successful motion for partial summary judgment dismissing an insurance claim for contents loss arising from a hotel fire, the insurer sought partial indemnity costs exceeding $25,000.

The plaintiff challenged the reasonableness of the claimed hours, the use of two counsel, and the hourly rates applied.

The court reviewed the governing principles under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and relevant appellate authority emphasizing reasonableness, proportionality, and the reasonable expectations of the unsuccessful party.

Although the insurer succeeded on the underlying motion, the court found the time docketed and partial indemnity rates somewhat excessive and reduced the requested amount.

Costs of $17,500 plus HST were awarded as fair and reasonable for the summary judgment motion.

The plaintiff's hotel and business were damaged by fire.

The plaintiff claimed $825,296.32 for destroyed contents under its insurance policy with the defendant insurer.

The insurer denied the claim, arguing the policy did not include contents coverage, and brought a motion for partial summary judgment to dismiss the contents claim.

The court applied the rules of construction for insurance contracts and found the policy clearly and unambiguously did not provide contents coverage, as no specific limit or premium was shown for contents on the declarations page.

The insurer's motion for partial summary judgment was granted.