Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 30 NOVEMBER 2015

Builders Take Note: BCCA Upholds Interpretation Of Common Defective Workmanship Exclusion

McCarthy Tétrault
McCarthy Tétrault
Contributor
McCarthy Tétrault

McCarthy Tétrault

Built on a unique model of collaboration, innovation and efficiency, McCarthy Tétrault delivers...

View firm profile
Explore more from McCarthy Tétrault

The LEG 2/96 is one of three model defective workmanship exclusion clauses developed by the London Engineering Group, a U.K. think tank that develops policy wording for the insurance industry.

CanadaInsurance

A unanimous panel of the B.C. Court of Appeal recently upheld a 2014 B.C. Supreme Court decision which interpreted, for the first time, the "LEG 2/96" exclusion clause for defective workmanship common in some Course of Construction insurance policies.

The LEG 2/96 is one of three model defective workmanship exclusion clauses developed by the London Engineering Group, a U.K. think tank that develops policy wording for the insurance industry. By way of comparison, the LEG 1/96 contains the broadest exclusion by excluding recovery for all loss or damage due to defects of workmanship or design. The LEG 3/96 is the narrowest exclusion, as it only excludes the costs incurred to improve the original material, workmanship, or design. The LEG 2/96 falls in the middle and excludes:

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from