ING Insurance Company of Canada v. A.M.L. Painting Ltd.

ING Insurance Company of Canada v. A.M.L. Painting Ltd.

On a reasonable reading of Sable's pleadings the claims include compensatory damages for physical injury and loss of use to Sable's property beyond mere costs to repair or replace AML's work; those pleaded facts could require indemnity and therefore ING has a duty to defend AML; the policy exclusions did not, on...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2006 NSSC 203
Parties
Applicant Insurer: ING Insurance Company of Canada; Respondent Insured: A.M.L. Painting Ltd.; Respondent Underlying Plaintiff: Sable Offshore Energy Inc.
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 June 2006
Procedural Posture
Insurance Duty to Defend/indemnify Application / Chambers Application/decision
Outcome
Application granted in part: ING ordered to defend A.M.L. Painting Ltd. in the Sable action; indemnity not resolved for all claims
Legal Topics
Duty to Defend, Property Damage Definition, Occurrence, Policy Exclusions, Faulty Workmanship Exclusion, Completed Operations
Source Language
english
Insurance Law Contract Tort Civil Procedure Duty to Defend Property Damage Definition Occurrence Policy Exclusions +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ING Insurance Company of Canada

Applicant Insurer

A.M.L. Painting Ltd.

Respondent Insured

Sable Offshore Energy Inc.

Respondent Underlying Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Insurance Duty to Defend/indemnify Application / Chambers Application/decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the underlying Statement of Claim alleges 'property damage' within the CGL policy definition
  2. 2 Whether policy exclusions for faulty workmanship, product and completed operations remove the duty to defend
  3. 3 Whether any alleged property damage is an 'occurrence' within the policy period

Ratio Decidendi

On a reasonable reading of Sable's pleadings the claims include compensatory damages for physical injury and loss of use to Sable's property beyond mere costs to repair or replace AML's work; those pleaded facts could require indemnity and therefore ING has a duty to defend AML; the policy exclusions did not, on their wording and in context, eliminate the duty to defend as to the pleaded third‑party property damage; the alleged damage could have begun within the policy period and thus constitute an occurrence.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part: ING ordered to defend A.M.L. Painting Ltd. in the Sable action; indemnity not resolved for all claims

Orders

  • ING Insurance Company of Canada shall defend A.M.L. Painting Ltd. in the Sable Offshore Energy Inc. action
  • Costs awarded to A.M.L. Painting Ltd. in the amount of $4,000.00 plus all actual disbursements as agreed between the parties or, failing agreement, as taxed