Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The court found Aviva underpaid a business interruption claim, held the restaurant would have opened, and declared Aviva breached its duty of good faith in claim handling.
The presence of SARS-CoV-2 on insured premises and civil authority orders related to the pandemic do not constitute "physical loss or damage" under standard business interruption insurance wordings; loss of use or economic interruption absent tangible physical alteration is insufficient to trigger coverage.
Source excerpt
The Binder, though part of the factual matrix, is not part of the issued Policy; 'peril insured' in Clauses 14 and 16 must be read against the Policy's foundation of 'all risks of direct physical loss or damage' and does not extend to government COVID-19 closure orders that caused only indirect losses; 'other catastrophe' in Clause 14 is read in light of 'conflagration' and does not encompass the pandemic for this manuscript policy; Aviva was not estopped by its prior payment; appeal dismissed and costs awarded to Aviva.
Source excerpt
The limit of liability clause, read in context with the indemnity provision and the policy as a whole (including separate schedules for each scheduled risk location), applies $50,000 per scheduled risk location; the clause is not ambiguous in context and the appeal is dismissed.
Source excerpt
The corrosion exclusion in the Policy applied to the losses from the NRU shutdown and the exception for "physical damage" did not extend to pure economic losses caused by loss of use; therefore MDS's business interruption losses were not covered. Consequently, coverage was denied and the appeal was allowed; appellant FM Global awarded its agreed costs and the trial judge's costs order was set aside.
Source excerpt
The exclusion clauses unambiguously excluded coverage for losses resulting from interruption to the supply of electricity caused by damage to transmission or distribution lines not located on the insured premises; Intact proved the loss fell within the exclusion and the appellant failed to adduce evidence to rebut that; accordingly summary judgment dismissing the action was proper.
Source excerpt
The Court held the trial judge correctly found the First Action losses were indirect and not covered by the policy and that the property claim in the Second Action was time-barred under the policy's one-year contractual limitation because the appellants knew or had means of knowing of their claim at the sale closing. The Court reversed the trial judge's application of a rolling limitation period to business interruption claims, finding no recurring contractual obligation to support a rolling limitation; therefore the Second Action was time-barred in its entirety. The appeal is dismissed and t…
Source excerpt
Federal Court summary-trial judgment in an admiralty collision case, allowing repair, business interruption and staffing losses in part, with interest and joint liability orders.
The court held that a civil authority insurance extension covered loss of revenue only while access was denied, not later consequential losses after the evacuation order ended.
Court held that the indemnity period was the full 12 months; rejected the defendant’s narrow customer-by-customer methodology and accepted a trend-based normalization approach (adopting Robar Scenario 1 but reducing the chosen non-printing growth rate to 20%); calculated lost gross profit approximately $199,164 rounded to $200,000, added uncontested increased cost of working $12,240 and allowed professional fees under policy maximum $25,000, producing aggregate recovery $230,990; RSA liable for that amount plus pre-judgment interest and costs.
Source excerpt
Explore more
