This case involves a large fire that occurred in the Port of Oshawa. The Plaintiff, who was the owner of the property, was claiming over $10 million in damages. The Defendant, the tenant at the time of the fire, was relying on, among other things, a covenant to insure contained in the lease, taking the position the covenant to insure would bar the Plaintiff’s case completely. The case also included claims of negligence, breach of contract, causation and damages. Justice Carole Browne agreed with the Defendant and found that the Defendant was successful on all issues. The decision includes key issues and law including covenants to insure, contractual and lease interpretation and contra proferentem, effect of a guilty plea in a related proceeding, causation, and principles of damages including whether repair/restoration value is payable, and deductibility of insurance monies. A great result for our client!

To read the decision, click the link below. 

In Heartland Farm Mutual v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company (decision of Arbitrator Samworth, January 19, 2022), Jonathan Schwartzman successfully obtained for the Applicant loss transfer indemnity for accident benefits paid. The Respondent’s purported pre-accident cancellation of its automobile insurance policy for the heavy commercial vehicle at fault for the accident, was found to be invalid for both a failure to comply with Statutory Condition 11 of the OAP1 with respect to payment of policy premium refund, and the grounds cited for the cancellation not properly existing. As a result, the Respondent’s policy remained in effect at the time of the accident and must respond to the loss transfer indemnity claim.
To read more, please click the link below.

Heartland & Wawanesa – Award dated January 19, 2022 

Don Dacquisto and James Tausendfreund successfully argued a coverage application on behalf of our client, Northbridge General Insurance Company relating to other insurance clauses. The underlaying action dealt with a claim against a pharmacist and Northbridge settled the claim. The respondent, Aviva Insurance Company took the position that their policy need not respond, and Northbridge took the position that 50% indemnity was owed. Justice Chalmers agreed with our client’s position and concluded that Aviva should be responsible for 50% indemnity.

Click here for the full Endorsement