Introduction
In a recent decision1 of the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice (“ONSC”), the court
interpreted a policy in which there was coverage for a
“windstorm”. The policy excluded loss or damage
resulting directly from “settling”. The term
“windstorm” was not defined in the policy, so the court
applied the ordinary dictionary definition of a
“windstorm”. The parties each presented factual
evidence relating to the cause of the loss. Ultimately, the court
found that the plaintiff's evidence was more thorough and
persuasive and ruled that the cause of the loss was a
“windstorm”, not “settling”.
Background
The insured, Gregory Hood, owned a seasonal cabin and hired
Steve Brennan, a local resident, to assist with the cabin's
maintenance whenever Mr. Hood was away. On August 26, 2021, Mr.
Brennan inspected the cabin in order to prepare it for Mr.
Hood's arrival the following week. During his inspection, Mr.
Brennan looked underneath the cabin. He did not notice
