Thomas G. Heintzman, O.C., Q.C., FCIArb

What Does A CGL Policy Cover After Progressive Homes?

A:        OVERVIEW The decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Progressive Homes Ltd. v. Lombard General Insurance Co of Canada[1]  is a seminal decision with respect to the application of CGL policies to the construction industry.  While the immediate effect of the decision was with respect to the insurer’s duty to defend the insured, […]

Continue Reading

Can A Service Contract Create A Duty To Defend?

A clause obliging the insurer to defend an insured, or pay for the insured’s defence, is a well know feature of liability insurance policies. Recently, some Canadian courts have held that the duty of one party to defend or pay for defence of another party to the contract may arise in contracts outside the field […]

Continue Reading

Does An Insurer’s Duty To Defend Apply If The Insured Complies With An Environmental Investigation?

The scope of an insurer’s duty to defend is a crucial issue in relating to any liability insurance policy, particularly those applying to building projects.   One of the questions which may arise is:  what is the nature of a “claim” for the purpose of the duty to defend?  That question will almost always be determined […]

Continue Reading

A Contractor’s Construction Errors May Be Covered By A General Liability Policy

In two recent decisions, courts in Ontario and British Columbia have held that negligence during construction (or manufacturing) may be covered by general liability policies even though the damage is part of the construction (or the product sold): California Kitchens & Bath Ltd. v. AXA Canada Inc. and Bulldog Bag Ltd. v. AXA Pacific Insurance […]

Continue Reading

A Contentious Insurance Issue – The Scope of the Duty to Defend Under a CGL Policy

Today we will examine a recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada relating to Insurance Law and the insurer’s Duty to Defend in the context of construction projects:  Progressive Homes Ltd. v. Lombard General Insurance Co. of Canada. This case provided the Supreme Court with an opportunity to consider a contentious issue in Canadian […]

Continue Reading