Miersma v. Pembridge Insurance Company

Miersma v. Pembridge Insurance Company

Because the statement of claim alleged negligent misrepresentation as a separate and distinct tort claim, the insurer's duty to defend was engaged and the court was not satisfied that the cited policy exclusions or the contractual disclaimer clearly relieved the insurer of that duty, so the appeal was dismissed.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
C44487
Parties
Respondent: Arthur Miersma; Respondent: Phyllis Miersma; Appellant: Pembridge Insurance Company
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 April 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; insurer not relieved of duty to defend on the record before the Court; costs awarded to respondents.
Legal Topics
Negligent Misrepresentation, Duty to Defend, Insurance Policy Exclusions, Disclaimer, Pleading Analysis
Source Language
en
Insurance Law Tort Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Negligent Misrepresentation Duty to Defend Insurance Policy Exclusions Disclaimer +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Arthur Miersma

Respondent

Phyllis Miersma

Respondent

Pembridge Insurance Company

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

  1. 1 Whether a negligent misrepresentation claim pleaded separately triggers the insurer's duty to defend distinct from a breach of contract claim
  2. 2 Whether the policy exclusion clauses cited by the insurer relieve it of the duty to defend
  3. 3 Whether the disclaimer in the agreement of purchase and sale defeats the negligent misrepresentation claim at the duty to defend stage

Ratio Decidendi

Because the statement of claim alleged negligent misrepresentation as a separate and distinct tort claim, the insurer's duty to defend was engaged and the court was not satisfied that the cited policy exclusions or the contractual disclaimer clearly relieved the insurer of that duty, so the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; insurer not relieved of duty to defend on the record before the Court; costs awarded to respondents.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Insurer remains subject to duty to defend based on the pleadings