William S. Chalmers

The plaintiffs, a grapevine grower and a nursery, sought a declaration that their insurer owed them a duty to defend an underlying action in British Columbia regarding allegedly defective vines.

The insurer denied coverage based on the 'Your Product', 'care, custody or control', and 'fungus' exclusions in the Commercial General Liability policy.

The court held that the pleadings in the underlying action clearly triggered the exclusions, relieving the insurer of any duty to defend.

The court also addressed the plaintiffs' request to appoint independent counsel, noting that while no duty to defend existed, specific protective measures would have been ordered to prevent conflicts of interest had the duty been found.

Multiple insurers disputed their duty to defend an insured chemical delivery company arising from two actions following a chlorine gas release at a public pool.

The insured and one insurer sought declarations compelling other insurers to contribute to defence costs.

Applying the pleadings rule from Monenco and related appellate authorities, the court held that the possibility of coverage under the policies triggered the duty to defend and that extrinsic evidence could not be used to prematurely determine factual causation issues.

The court also rejected an argument that defence cost coverage depended on insurer consent.

Principles of equitable contribution required all insurers with potential coverage to share defence costs.

The plaintiff hospital sued the general contractor (Compass) and subcontractor (Black Creek) for water damage caused during a kitchen renovation.

Black Creek brought a motion under Rule 21 to determine whether Compass's cross-claim against it for contribution and indemnity was barred by the 'covenant to insure' in the general contract.

Black Creek argued the tort immunity principle barred the cross-claim for damage to the entire hospital.

Compass argued the immunity only applied to the 'work' (the kitchen project) and not the adjacent property (the rest of the hospital).

The court held that the covenant to insure and the builder's risk policy only covered the project site (the kitchen), not the entire hospital.

Therefore, Compass's cross-claim against Black Creek for damages outside the kitchen was not barred.