Newsletters

621

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.
621

Authors

Articles in the same category

An Insurer Is Not Required to Uncover What the Insured Was Required to Disclose

In Kayembe-Kabeya v. Industrielle Alliance, assurance et services financiers inc., 2026 QCCS 1714, the Superior Court sets the record straight on the principle of contractual “utmost good faith”. The Facts In September 2019, Ms. Ricady Mede (hereinafter “Mede”) purchased a life insurance policy from Industrielle Alliance (hereinafter the “Insurer”). A few months later, she died of […]

When it’s too late for latent defects…

The Superior Court recently rendered a judgment in Reinert v. Construction Maurice Bilodeau Inc., 2026 QCCS 2276, dealing with timeliness to give notice in cases of latent defects. The Facts In 2013, Ms. Sylvie Reinert and Mr. Denis Leclerc retained Construction Maurice Bilodeau Inc. (“CMB”) for the construction of a residential building on a vacant lot in Lévis. […]

Insurance Math: One Claim, Two Fires, Three Points of Origin, Zero Recovery: When Circumstantial Evidence Speaks Louder Than a Confession

In Chatel v. Desjardins Insurance, 2026 QCCS 712, the Quebec Superior Court reaffirmed a principle of insurance law: direct evidence is not required to establish an intentional fault. Mr. Chatel claimed $532,000 under his homeowner’s insurance policy following two fires that occurred four days apart. The first caused partial damage to his residence, while the second […]

The Quarrelsome Litigant: When the Right to Sue Becomes a Scourge

Access to the courts is a fundamental right, but what happens when a person uses it not to assert legitimate rights, but to harass others or clog the system to excess? This is quarrelsomeness: the tendency to exercise one’s right to litigate in an excessive or unreasonable manner. Far from being a marginal phenomenon, it […]

Before Buying a Product, Read This: The Rules Are Changing on October 5!

On October 5, 2026, the final amendments to the Regulation amending the Regulation respecting the application of the Consumer Protection Act (the “Regulation“) are expected to come into force, completing the implementation of the new “good working order” warranty in the province of Quebec. When this warranty applies, the merchant or manufacturer will be required to repair […]

No Notice of Default, No Termination

In Pavage Wemindji Inc. v. Compagnie de Construction et de Développement crie ltée, the Quebec Superior Court emphasized that a valid notice of default (mise en demeure) is not just a formality—it’s a precondition to exercising remedies like contract termination in many cases under Quebec civil law. The Decision The plaintiff, Pavage Wemindji Inc. (“Wemindji”), […]