Davis Petroleum Equipment Ltd. v. Lombard General Insurance Company of Canada

Davis Petroleum Equipment Ltd. v. Lombard General Insurance Company of Canada

The court held that the mere presence of the insured on property occupied and controlled by others for a limited purpose does not bring the pollutant escape within the Absolute Pollution Exclusion, and therefore the insurer has a duty to defend.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
C43832
Parties
Appellant: Lombard General Insurance Company of Canada; Respondent: Davis Petroleum Equipment Ltd.; Respondent: Gilbert Leo Rivard
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal (court of Appeal)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; motions judge's finding that insurer has a duty to defend affirmed; respondent awarded costs.
Legal Topics
Duty to Defend, Absolute Pollution Exclusion, Policy Interpretation, Coverage Dispute
Source Language
en
Insurance Environmental (pollution) Civil Procedure Duty to Defend Absolute Pollution Exclusion Policy Interpretation Coverage Dispute

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lombard General Insurance Company of Canada

Appellant

Davis Petroleum Equipment Ltd.

Respondent

Gilbert Leo Rivard

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal (court of Appeal)

  1. 1 Whether the escape of pollutants occurred "at or from any premises site or location which is or was at any time owned or occupied by, or rented or loaned to any Insured" such that the Absolute Pollution Exclusion applies and defeats the duty to defend.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the mere presence of the insured on property occupied and controlled by others for a limited purpose does not bring the pollutant escape within the Absolute Pollution Exclusion, and therefore the insurer has a duty to defend.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; motions judge's finding that insurer has a duty to defend affirmed; respondent awarded costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Respondent entitled to costs fixed in the amount of $8,500.00.