Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 06 DECEMBER 2017

Deciphering The Duty To Defend

Miller Thomson
Miller Thomson
Contributor

Miller Thomson

Miller Thomson LLP ("Miller Thomson") is a national business law firm with approximately 500...

View firm profile
Explore more from Miller Thomson

The Court of Appeal for Ontario recently considered an Ontario Superior Court judge's decision regarding an insurer's duty to defend in the context of a maintenance contract.

CanadaInsurance

The Court of Appeal for Ontario recently considered an Ontario Superior Court judge's decision regarding an insurer's duty to defend in the context of a maintenance contract.

In August 2013, a worker employed by the landscaping company Lafleur de la Capitale Inc. ("Lafleur") died while working at the National Art Gallery of Canada (the "Gallery") in Ottawa. An investigation determined the worker was walking up the entrance ramp of the underground parking facility when a car approached the ramp. The worker stepped to the side to avoid the vehicle and fell over the ledge. The worker's family members brought claims against the Gallery and Lafleur pursuant to the Family Law Act.

Lafleur added the Gallery as an additional named insured on its CGL policy issued by Intact. The Gallery brought a "duty to defend" Application seeking a defence to the lawsuits from Intact under the Lafleur policy.  The Gallery relied on the terms of the maintenance contract that was in place

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