December 13, 2022
The insurer’s duty to defend a claim made against its insured is inextricably tied to coverage: there can be no duty to defend without a likelihood that indemnity for the claim will be covered under the insurance contract. The insurer’s duty to defend usually arises at the outset of a legal proceeding – and puts the merits of the claim under scrutiny before the insurer has obtained any information through the discovery process within the litigation. Insurers must understand both how to determine whether it owes its insured a duty to defend in a particular context, and when to raise coverage issues with the insured.
On receipt of a claim, insurers sometimes face situations where a claim quite clearly falls outside of coverage. But often, they find themselves in one of two trickier situations:
An insured’s failure to defend when the duty is owed can lead to claims against the insurer for damages, in particular bad faith. Yet if an insurer adopts the insured’s defence at the outset, it becomes more difficult to withdraw the coverage as time passes. Here’s a look at the risks of denying coverage too early and denying too late, and three practical and strategic practices an insurer can adopt to protect its interests in both situations.
Denying Too Early: Duty of Good Faith & Duly Diligent Investigation
When an insurer denies coverage of a claim early and swiftly, it risks that, after the third party litigation is complete, the insurer will face claims not only for indemnity and reimbursement of any defence costs the insured incurred – but also for claims of bad faith and unfair dealing with the insured.
The Duty of Good Faith. The insurer’s duty of good faith to its insured is wide reaching, as laid out by the Supreme Court of Canada in its 2002 decision in Whiten v. Pilot Insurance Co. and its 2006 decision in Fidler v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada. Both remain the primary authorities for this principle, and both place a heavy onus on insurers to give their insureds the benefit of the doubt when considering whether to cease coverage or to deny it completely from the outset.
The Duty to Investigate. Whiten revolved around the insurer’s lack of appropriate investigation and reliable information when denying the insured’s claim and stands for the general proposition that an insurer’s failure to adequately consider and give weight to the insured’s statements can lead to very hefty awards of aggravated and punitive damages against it. The 2015 decision of the N.S. Court of Appeal in Industrial Alliance Insurance and Financial Services Inc. v. Brine, while in the context of a first party claim against a disability insurer, is helpful to an understanding of what the insurer’s duty of good faith means in practice. There, the Court reinforced that, “[t]he insurer’s duty to act fairly applies to ‘the manner in which it investigates and assesses the claim and to the decision whether or not to pay it’.”
The Coverage Conflict. The duty to sufficiently investigate in the context of the duty to defend and the pleadings rule creates an inherent conflict: the pleadings rule states the court must only consider the allegations in the pleadings when determining whether there’s a duty to defend; yet the duty of good faith lends itself to obtaining more information in order to adequately assess the claim and the duty to defend. The pleadings rule comes from a number of Supreme Court of Canada cases beginning with its 1990 decision in Nichols v. American Home Assurance Co. The Nichols decision states that in deciding whether a defence is owed to an insured, the court (and therefore the insurer) should not look past the pleadings (usually the Statement of Claim) in determining whether there is any possibility of coverage. If there is a possibility of coverage for an allegation within the pleadings, then the duty to defend is triggered. The duty to defend can arise irrespective of the ultimate duty to indemnify. This begs the question: why must the insurer go any further than the pleadings when considering whether coverage will apply? The Ontario Court of Appeal addressed this question in its oft-cited 2000 decision in Longo v. Maciorowski. There, the Court acknowledged the challenge:
The Court rejected the solution of pausing the claim against the insured while a court decides the coverage issue in an expedited manner; acknowledging that while this could be practical in some circumstances, it’s not in most others. Instead, the Court preferred a flexible, case-by-case, assessment where the insurer identifies a potential policy breach at the outset of the third party litigation (at para. 36):
Thus, rather than establishing an immutable legal principle, I would suggest that the question should be determined upon consideration of the circumstances of each case, including the relative strength of the positions asserted by the insurer and the insured and the necessity and urgency to furnish the insured with a separate defence.
The best approach to a coverage decision regarding the duty to defend is therefore one based on both sufficient facts and the strength of the coverage argument. When this decision is made will be specific in each case. Needless to say, however, there are perils in both waiting too long to raise coverage issues, and in denying coverage too soon.
Denying Too Late: Estoppel
Part of the reason courts have adopted the “any” possibility test for determining the existence of a duty to defend is to give the insured the benefit of the doubt and access to defence costs until the discovery process is completed, and the insurer can properly ascertain and assess any facts relevant to coverage. Yet when an insurer embarks on a defence of an insured and ultimately denies coverage, it risks being estopped from later withdrawing either defence or indemnity coverage.
Rationale. The idea of estoppel is that the insured has been operating all along under the assumption that there is coverage, relied on that, and suffers a detriment if the insurer later withdraws coverage.
Estoppel Examples. Examples of situations in which courts have found insurers estopped from withdrawing coverage include:
3 Practices to Mitigate Your Risks
Here are three practical and strategic practices an insurer can adopt to protect its interests and mitigate its risks in situations of both early and late coverage concerns.
Benefit of the Doubt. Be careful not to rush to judgment on coverage without sufficient facts to back up the off-coverage position. The insurer’s duty of good faith to the insured is grounded in broader considerations than just the pleadings rule. Bear this in mind whenever the insured makes factual representations that would lead to coverage under the policy, give them the benefit of the doubt, and consider them carefully. For example, if a claim against an insured by a third party alleges fraud and negligence, and the insurer’s investigation leads it to conclude the insured likely did commit fraud (which the insured denies), the insurer might still owe the insured a duty to defend for the negligence allegation – even if fraud is later proven at trial and there’s no resulting duty to indemnify.
Reservation of Rights & Non-Waiver Agreement. While giving the insured the benefit of the doubt, however, it’s critical that an insurer be clear with the insured up front with respect to its coverage concerns. In cases where there are questionable facts at the outset, and the insurer needs more information to draw any factual conclusions, the best course of action is to agree to defend the insured under a reservation of rights and non-waiver agreement. With its rights reserved, the insurer can proceed to obtain more information – without waiving any of its rights to exclude coverage later. This puts the insured on notice that there’s a potential problem and makes it more difficult for them to object if and when the insurer later withdraws coverage for the defence, raising issues of good faith along with it.
Coverage Counsel. It’s also important that the liability insurer retain separate coverage counsel when dealing with these two parallel disputes: the third party claims on the one hand, where the defence counsel takes instruction from the liability insurer, but is legally the lawyer for the insured tortfeasor; and the coverage dispute for that defence. This will avoid issues of conflicts of interest and divided loyalties.
Please contact your McInnes Cooper lawyer or any member of our Insurance Defence Team @ McInnes Cooper to discuss when to raise coverage concerns in your cases.
McInnes Cooper has prepared this document for information only; it is not intended to be legal advice. You should consult McInnes Cooper about your unique circumstances before acting on this information. McInnes Cooper excludes all liability for anything contained in this document and any use you make of it.
© McInnes Cooper, 2022. All rights reserved. McInnes Cooper owns the copyright in this document. You may reproduce and distribute this document in its entirety as long as you do not alter the form or the content and you give McInnes Cooper credit for it. You must obtain McInnes Cooper’s consent for any other form of reproduction or distribution. Email us at [email protected] to request our consent.
Mar 30, 2023
The Alberta Court of Appeal recently sent a strong message to insureds: utmost good faith is not only key but is required in insurance claims.…
Apr 18, 2022
On March 28, 2022, the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador (General Division) decided that in a personal injury case, quantification of…
Mar 29, 2022
The Supreme Court of Canada’s recent consideration of estoppel and waiver in the context of a fatal injury case in Trial Lawyers Association…
Nov 23, 2021
On November 19, 2021, in Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia v. Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Company of Canada, the Supreme…
Oct 29, 2021
On October 21, 2021, the Supreme Court of Canada clarified the law concerning the circumstances in which government organizations - including…
Sep 23, 2021
On September 9, 2021, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal released its decision in Aviva Insurance v. PK Construction Ltd. Dealing with Nova…
Jun 11, 2020
New types of claims will emerge while insurers may see an evolution or even decrease in the traditional types. Here are the types of claims and…
Apr 17, 2020
The global and domestic spread of COVID-19 has forced Canadians to reassess their upcoming travel plans – and insurers to assess their travel…
Feb 14, 2020
NOTE: On July 23, 2021, the Supreme Court of Canada agreed with the Newfoundland & Labrador Court of Appeal’s decision respecting the law,…
Jan 14, 2020
On December 23, 2019, the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal effectively eliminated the category of “knowledgeable fact witness” in…
Nov 22, 2019
On November 20, 2019, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal confirmed pursuant to section 113BA(1) of Nova Scotia’s Insurance Act, in the context of…
Jan 21, 2019
On January 18, 2019, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal rendered its unanimous (5-0) decision in Holland v. Sparks, overturning a motion decision…
Oct 25, 2018
NOTE: On November 20, 2019, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal upheld the trial court’s decision and confirmed pursuant to section 113BA(1) of…
Oct 12, 2018
On October 11, 2018, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal released its first decision considering the saving provision in Section 12 of Nova…
May 11, 2018
On May 8, 2018, for the first time, the Nova Scotia Supreme Court has ruled on the deductibility of Workers’ Compensation Board Extended…
Apr 26, 2018
The N.S. Court of Appeal has reached two decisions ending one employee’s quest for coverage of the costs of his medical marijuana – at least…
Jan 25, 2018
Insurers have generally been leery of coverage for medical cannabis in both the health benefit claims and in cost of care claims in the personal…
Jul 10, 2017
The legal landscape of cannabis (a.k.a. marihuana, weed, pot …) is changing, both reflecting - and contributing to - more relaxed attitudes…
Jun 5, 2017
On June 2, 2017, the Supreme Court of Canada decided that where a plaintiff advances a claim for negligently caused psychological or psychiatric…
May 3, 2017
On May 2, 2017, the N.S. Court of Appeal decided another case involving the deductibility of CPP disability benefits – but this time, in the…
Apr 6, 2017
Adding a third jurisdiction to Gard Update’s comparison between privilege in the corporate context under U.S. and English law, McInnes Cooper…
Mar 15, 2017
On March 9, 2017, the N.S. Court of Appeal stopped building inspection claims in their tracks when it decided that a defence based section…
Jan 30, 2017
On January 27, 2017, the Supreme Court of Canada decided in Sabean v. Portage La Prairie Mutual Insurance Co. that future CPP disability…
Nov 28, 2016
On November 25, 2016, the Supreme Court of Canada decided privilege wins again - twice. In two separate decisions - Lizotte v. Aviva Insurance…
Sep 19, 2016
On September 15, 2016, the Supreme Court of Canada decided certain damage to a building under construction was covered under the relevant…
Aug 17, 2016
The Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal recently affirmed the test for confirming a cause of action and thus resetting a limitation period…
Jul 5, 2016
The Ontario Court of Appeal has re-ignited the discussion about when a municipality will be held liable for its shoddy bylaw enforcement…
Jun 20, 2016
As of July 1, 2016, packed cargo containers to which the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), Chapter VI, Regulation…
Jun 20, 2016
Real estate vendors and purchasers have high expectations of their realtors – and they don’t often hesitate to pursue legal action against…
Apr 15, 2016
On April 14, 2016, Canada’s federal Justice Minister proposed legislation setting out the conditions that a person wishing to undergo…
Jan 27, 2016
On January 21, 2016, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice dramatically expanded the scope of legal privacy protection – and the liability…
Jul 21, 2015
On July 16, 2015, the New Brunswick Court of Appeal ordered an insurer to produce a significant amount of its financial and business information…
Jun 8, 2015
On June 4, 2015, the NS Court of Appeal decided the value of future CPP disability benefits is deductible under the SEF 44 family protection…
Feb 18, 2015
The new NS Limitations of Actions Act – the legislation that determines the limitation period (time limit) in which a lawsuit must be started…
Feb 9, 2015
NOTE: On April 14, 2016, the federal government proposed legislation setting out the conditions that a person wishing to undergo…
Nov 3, 2014
Note: On November 20, 2014 the NS Government passed the final form of Bill 64, Limitations of Actions Act into law. The final form of the Act…
Sep 9, 2014
Effective October 1, 2014, the New Brunswick Rules of Court will change – some Rules for the first time since they came into effect in 1982.…
May 2, 2014
April showers bring … flood and sewage back-up claims. Flooding and sewage back-up can result in significant damage for municipal ratepayers,…
Subscribe to McInnes Cooper to stay current with our leading insights on legal updates, trends, news, events, and services.