Canadian National Railway Company v. Royal and Sun Alliance InsuranceCompany of Canada
The Court of Appeal majority allowed the insurers' appeal because the trial judge erred in finding the faulty or improper design exclusion inapplicable: the risk of excess differential deflection that caused the TBM failure was known and investigated by the designer and therefore the loss flowed from a faulty design...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2007 ONCA 209
- Parties
- Plaintiff Respondent (cross‑appellant): Canadian National Railway Company; Plaintiff Respondent (cross‑appellant): Grand Trunk Western Railroad Incorporated; Plaintiff Respondent (cross‑appellant): St. Clair Tunnel Company; Defendant Appellant: Royal and Sun Alliance Insurance Company of Canada; Defendant Appellant: AXA Assurances Inc.; Defendant Appellant: The Continental Casualty Company of Canada; Defendant Appellant: Reliance Insurance Company; Defendant Appellant: Aviva Canada Inc.; Defendant Appellant: St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 26 March 2007
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Insurance Coverage on Builders Risk Policy / Appeal and Cross‑appeal From Superior Court Trial Judgment (judgment Dated October 7, 2004)
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; cross‑appeal dismissed; trial judgment dated October 7, 2004 set aside; action against insurers dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Faulty or Improper Design Exclusion, Inherent Vice Exclusion, All‑risks Builders Risk Policy, Foreseeability Standard, Resultant Loss or Damage, Sue and Labour, Causation, Prejudgment Interest, Costs, Appeal Review of Findings of Fact
- Source Language
- english
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Canadian National Railway Company
Plaintiff Respondent (cross‑appellant)
Grand Trunk Western Railroad Incorporated
Plaintiff Respondent (cross‑appellant)
St. Clair Tunnel Company
Plaintiff Respondent (cross‑appellant)
Royal and Sun Alliance Insurance Company of Canada
Defendant Appellant
AXA Assurances Inc.
Defendant Appellant
The Continental Casualty Company of Canada
Defendant Appellant
Reliance Insurance Company
Defendant Appellant
Aviva Canada Inc.
Defendant Appellant
St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company
Defendant Appellant
Procedural Posture
Civil Insurance Coverage on Builders Risk Policy / Appeal and Cross‑appeal From Superior Court Trial Judgment (judgment Dated October 7, 2004)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether faulty or improper design exclusion applies where TBM failed due to excess differential deflection
- 2 Whether inherent vice exclusion applies
- 3 Whether resultant loss exception to design exclusion covers consequential losses such as delayed opening
Ratio Decidendi
The Court of Appeal majority allowed the insurers' appeal because the trial judge erred in finding the faulty or improper design exclusion inapplicable: the risk of excess differential deflection that caused the TBM failure was known and investigated by the designer and therefore the loss flowed from a faulty design within the exclusion; the inherent vice exclusion was not made out; resultant loss exception did not afford coverage for the insured�s claimed consequential losses; consequently the trial judgment was set aside and the action against the insurers dismissed.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; cross‑appeal dismissed; trial judgment dated October 7, 2004 set aside; action against insurers dismissed
Orders
- Set aside trial judgment dated October 7, 2004
- Dismiss action against the appellant insurers
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment