Newsletters

272

A Reminder of the Basic Differences Between a Builder’s Risk Policy and a Liability Policy

In the recent case of Bridor inc. c. 90784497 Québec inc., 2022 QCCS 2496, the Superior Court ruled on the fundamental distinctions between a Builder’s Risk policy and a liability insurance policy.

Bridor inc. [Bridor] had retained the services of Construction Milkado [Mikado] as a construction manager to oversee the expansion of its plant. In the main claim, Bridor alleged that Mikado had committed three faults in its management of the construction, one of which consisted of damages caused to architectural panels that made up the outside walls of the expansion. The project and the parties were insured under two policies issued by Starr Insurance & Reinsurance Limited [Starr]: a Wrap-Up liability insurance policy and a Builder’s Risk insurance policy.

In a Wellington type application, Mikado asked the Court to order Starr to take up its interest, and defend it for the damage caused to the panels in virtue of the Builder’s Risk policy

The Court first noted that the Civil Code of Québec provides for two types of damage insurance: liability, and property. Justice Andres C. Garin observed that the legal obligation to take up an insured’s defence, expressed in article 2503 CCQ, is in subdivision III.3 of the chapter of the Code that applies exclusively to liability insurance.

Justice Garin then observed that Builder’s Risk policies are usually property insurance policies . After examining Starr’s policy, the Court concluded that it was in fact a property insurance policy that did not provide for the insurer’s obligation to take up its insured’s interest in case of a claim or lawsuit.

Since Mikado was only raising the Builder’s Risk policy, the Wellington application was dismissed.

Takeaway

  • Builder’s Risk policies are generally property insurance.
  • The object of the insurance must be determined through an analysis of the warranty clause, that defines the scope and nature of the protection provided;
  • In all cases, it is essential to examine all of the clauses in the policy since its designation may sometimes fail to reflect accurately all the coverage that it in fact provides;
  • An insurer is not required to take up its insured’s interest under a Builder’s Risk insurance.
272

Authors

Articles in the same category

Manufacturers: the heat is on!

An important decision in Product Liability and the obligation of Diligence and Transparency The Court of Appeal recently rendered a decision in CCI Thermal Technologies Inc. c. AXA XL (XL Catlin), 2023 QCCA 231, concerning the liability of the manufacturer and the apportionment of liability between the parties. This case involved twenty separate fires caused […]

Four RSS Lawyers Named Litigation Stars

We’re proud to announce that four of our lawyers were named “Litigation Star” by Benchmark Litigation Canada for 2023: Patrick Henry, Lynne Kassie, Hugues Duguay and Vikki Andrighetti. Congratulations for this accomplishment!

Without a Written Conventional Subrogation, Your Recourse May Be Dismissed

On March 28, 2023, the Superior Court of Quebec partially granted a motion to dismiss the case, dealing with the notions of legal subrogation, conventional subrogation and prejudice. This judgment, Gouvernement de la Nation Crie / Cree Nation Government c. 9327-1781 Québec inc., 2023, reminds us that it is essential for a non-insurer to agree […]

Standard Mortage Endorsment: Is it a Shield for the Creditor?

The scope and protection afforded to a mortgage creditor by the standard mortgage endorsement was again analyzed by the Court of Appeal in Roma Capital inc. 2023 QCCA 307. It should be noted that in this decision rendered on March 7, 2023, the Court of Appeal was hesitant since the decision was rendered on a […]

The strict standard applicable to the exclusion clause for suicide

On February 3, 2023, in Bolduc v. SSQ Assurance, 2023 QCCS 266, the Superior Court once again reminded the insurance industry that strict compliance with the rules governing the drafting of exclusion clauses, particularly in the case of suicide, is essential to avoid unfortunate consequences for insurers. The facts in dispute On November 23, 2006, […]

Where do you keep your corrosive cleaner?

The Facts La Capitale was claiming reimbursement of more than $137,000 in compensation paid to its insureds following water damage that occurred in their home on February 2, 2017. La Capitale was thus suing the general contractor who built the residence in 2012, the distributor of the faucet whose flexible pipe failed, as well as […]

Be the first informed:

Subscribe to our communications