Newsletters

647

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.
647

Authors

Articles in the same category

Ruin Finds a Reason

In Société d’assurance Beneva Inc. c. Ville de Sherbrooke, 2026 QCCA 1301, the Court of Appeal delivers a decision as concise as it is compelling on liability arising from the ruin of an immovable, in a case involving the rupture of a water main. Its impact could extend well beyond underground pipe failures. The Facts […]

There Is No Point in Submitting a Bid Without Conducting Your Research First

In 9329-0146 Québec Inc. (M. Potvin Excavation) v. City of Saint-Constant, 2026 QCCA 1199, the Quebec Court of Appeal reaffirmed the principles governing a contracting authority’s duty to provide information and a bidder’s corresponding duty to seek clarification where necessary. The Facts  In May 2020, the City of Saint-Constant issued a public call for bids […]

2026 World Cup: FIFA Can Commercialise the Tournament, But Not Trust

Introduction With 48 teams, 104 matches, three host countries and 39 days of competition, the 2026 World Cup was already destined to make history because of its sheer scale. On the field, with a transformed VAR system (Video Assistant Referee) and FIFA’s new regulations, every player action was subjected to microscopic scrutiny. Off the field, […]

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 […]