The appellant, a project owner/developer, appealed a summary judgment dismissing its crossclaim against engineering consultants/subcontractors (respondents).
The crossclaim sought contribution and indemnity for damages paid to adjacent property owners, arguing the respondents were not covered under the appellant's wrap-up liability policy for professional services claims, despite a waiver of subrogation clause.
The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding the respondents were "additional insureds" and the waiver of subrogation applied.
The court affirmed that the policy, a standard form contract, was unambiguous and that the appellant's crossclaim was indeed a subrogated claim, regardless of the timing of payments.
