Corp. of Dawson Creek (City) v. Zurich Insurance Co.

Corp. of Dawson Creek (City) v. Zurich Insurance Co.

The Court dismissed the appeal, holding the roof collapse was a fortuitous loss within the all-risks policy: the construction fault did not constitute inherent vice or latent defect as excluded, clause 5(g) implies faulty construction after completion is not excluded, and the collapse resulted from the combination of structural weakness and the 1997 snow load, bringing the loss within coverage.

Citation
2000 BCCA 158
Parties
Plaintiff (respondent): The Corporation of the City of Dawson Creek; Defendant (appellant): Zurich Insurance Company
Court
British Columbia Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 March 2000
Procedural Posture
Insurance Coverage Appeal / Appeal From Summary Trial (court of Appeal)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; insurer liable to indemnify the City for collapse-related loss and damage under the policy.
Legal Topics
All Risks Coverage, Inherent Vice, Latent Defect, Faulty Construction, Collapse, Fortuity, Exclusion Clauses, Policy Interpretation
Source Language
English
Insurance Law Property Law Contract Interpretation All Risks Coverage Inherent Vice Latent Defect Faulty Construction Collapse +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Corporation of the City of Dawson Creek

Plaintiff (respondent)

Zurich Insurance Company

Defendant (appellant)

Procedural Posture

Insurance Coverage Appeal / Appeal From Summary Trial (court of Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether insurer liable under an all-risks policy for collapse of arena roof
  2. 2 Whether faulty original construction constitutes an excluded inherent vice or latent defect
  3. 3 Whether policy exclusion 5(g) limits application of inherent vice/latent defect exclusions to property in course of construction

Ratio Decidendi

The Court dismissed the appeal, holding the roof collapse was a fortuitous loss within the all-risks policy: the construction fault did not constitute inherent vice or latent defect as excluded, clause 5(g) implies faulty construction after completion is not excluded, and the collapse resulted from the combination of structural weakness and the 1997 snow load, bringing the loss within coverage.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; insurer liable to indemnify the City for collapse-related loss and damage under the policy.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed