Supreme Court of Canada Gives a Lesson in Insurance Contract Interpretation in Ledcor Construction Ltd. v. Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Co.

Advanced Filters

Please search by first or last name. e.g: "John" or "Smith". Your search will begin after typing at least 2 characters. Searching...
Sort by: Relevance | Name

We are pleased to provide you with detailed biographies on our lawyers, paralegals and administrative team, so you can learn more about how we can best support your business' success.

Use the search bar above or the advanced filters to further narrow your search by service, industry, office location, bar admissions, title, education and language.

: Service; Industry; Office; Position; Bar Admission; Education; Language

Contact Form

: Contact

We want to hear from you: Did we delight you with great service or a timely insight? Did we miss the mark? Are you looking for legal advice? If so, we want to know. Just type a few lines into our form, send an email to client.service@mcinnescooper.com, or call 1-855-622-6668.

Charlottetown

141 Kent St., Suite 300
McInnes Cooper Building
Charlottetown, PE
C1A 1N3

Tel: 902.368.8473
Fax: 902.368.8346

Fredericton

570 Queen St., Suite 600
Barker House
Fredericton, NB
E3B 6Z6

Tel: 506.458.8572
Fax: 506.458.9903

Halifax

1969 Upper Water St., Suite 1300
Purdy’s Wharf Tower II
Halifax, NS
B3J 3R7

Tel: 902.425.6500
Fax: 902.425.6350

Moncton

644 Main St., Suite 400
Blue Cross Building, South Tower
Moncton, NB
E1C 1E2

Tel: 506.857.8970
Fax: 506.857.4095

Saint John

1 Germain St., Suite 1700
Brunswick Square
Saint John, NB
E2L 4V1

Tel: 506.643.6500
Fax: 506.643.6505

St. John’s

10 Fort William Pl., 5th Floor
Baine Johnston Centre
St. John’s, NL
A1C 1K4

Tel: 709.722.8735
Fax: 709.722.1763

More Publications

Publication

Supreme Court of Canada Gives a Lesson in Insurance Contract Interpretation in Ledcor Construction Ltd. v. Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Co.

September 19, 2016

By Aidan Meade, at McInnes Cooper

On September 15, 2016, the Supreme Court of Canada decided certain damage to a building under construction was covered under the relevant builders’ risk policy in a decision that’s particularly relevant to builder’s risk (a.k.a construction all risk) and commercial general liability insurers across Canada. The decision reconfirms that just like any contract, a court will enforce the unambiguous wording of an insurance policy to determine what’s covered, excluded from that coverage, and the exceptions to those exclusions. If the question is whether damage excepted from an exclusion is “resulting damage”, the scope of work of the party that caused the damage will likely be determinative. And while the Court engaged in yet another legalistic discussion of “standard of review”, this time its decision that the interpretation of standard form contracts is subject to the “correctness” standard of review has some practical impact: trial decisions interpreting standard form contracts – like many insurance contracts – might be easier to appeal.

In Ledcor Construction Ltd. v. Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Co., an owner hired a general contractor to construct a building, including to supply and install the windows. The owner separately contracted with a cleaning services company to clean the windows. The cleaners used improper tools and methods and scratched the windows to the extent the general contractor had to replace them. The general contractor and the building’s owner claimed the cost of replacing the windows against a builders’ risk insurance policy issued in their favour and covering all contractors involved in the construction. But the insurers denied coverage on the basis of an exclusion contained in the policy for the “cost of making good faulty workmanship”. The general contractor and the owner sued the insurer on the basis that the “resulting damage” exception to the exclusion applied, bringing the claim back into coverage under the policy.

The trial court decided the exclusion clause was ambiguous. It used a contract interpretation rule that the court should interpret an ambiguous contract term against the party that wrote the contract (contra proferentem rule) and decided the insurers were liable. The Alberta Court of Appeal, however, reversed this decision. Applying the correctness standard of review to the policy interpretation, it decided the exclusion clause was not ambiguous at all, so the trial court incorrectly used the contra proferentem rule. The Appeal Court then devised and applied a new test – “physical or systemic connectedness” – to determine whether physical damage was excluded as the “cost of making good faulty workmanship”, or covered as “resulting damage”. It concluded the damage was physical loss excluded from coverage because it was directly caused by the intentional scraping and wiping motions involved in the cleaners’ work, not accidental or fortuitous. The Supreme Court of Canada, however, disagreed and found the insurer liable for the cost of repairs to the windows.

The exclusion clause was ambiguous but general contract principles resolved the ambiguity & “resulting damage” is covered – here. The wording of both the exclusion and the exception were not defined elsewhere in the policy, resulting in two possible outcomes: the one the insureds promoted and the one the insurer promoted. However, the Court resolved the ambiguity by focussing on the wording of both the exclusion and the exception clauses in light of the parties’ reasonable expectations and the purpose behind the insurance policy, all with a view to avoiding unreasonable results. It decided the exclusion clause excludes only the cost of redoing the faulty work – the cost of re-cleaning the windows – so the window damage and thus their replacement cost was covered. Since the general rules of contract interpretation resolved the ambiguity, it wasn’t necessary to use the contra proferentem rule or the physical or systemic connectedness test.

Interpretation of a standard form contract is an exception. The general rule is that contract interpretation is subject to deference from an appeal court. But six of the seven Supreme Court Justices agreed that the interpretation of a “standard form” contract is an exception to this rule and “correctness” is the appropriate standard of review because it has precedential value and it advances the mandate of appeal courts to ensure consistency in the law.

This decision applies to and has an impact on the insurance and construction industries across Canada even though the case originated in Alberta. It’s particularly relevant to builder’s risk (sometimes called construction all risk) and commercial general liability insurance policies because each commonly incorporates exclusions and exceptions concerning workmanship and resulting damage.

Contract Interpretation 101. The decision reconfirms that if the language of the insurance policy is unambiguous then, like any contract, a court will enforce its clear wording to interpret its meaning and in particular, to determine what’s covered, excluded from that coverage, and the exceptions to those exclusions.

“Resulting damage”. In deciding whether the damage to which the exception to the exclusion refers is “resulting damage”, the scope of work of the party that caused the damage will likely be determinative. In this case, the cleaning contractor’s scope of work was limited to cleaning windows. But if the cleaning formed part of the general contractor’s work, the outcome would likely have been different because the general contractor’s “workmanship” – which is excluded from coverage – would have involved delivery of not only a clean, but also an undamaged, window.

Practical impact of standard of review. The Court engaged in yet another discussion of “standard of review”. The discussion itself is rather academic and legalistic and confusing and is of some (limited) interest to lawyers – and likely none to their clients. But the Court’s ultimate decision that the interpretation of standard form contracts is subject to the “correctness” standard of review does have some practical impact: trial decisions interpreting a standard form contract – like many insurance contracts – must be “correct”, and therefore may be easier to appeal.

Please contact your McInnes Cooper lawyer or any member of the Insurance or Construction Law Team @ McInnes Cooper to discuss this topic or any other legal issue.

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, 2016. 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 publications@mcinnescooper.com to request our consent.

People

Industries

Publication

January 30, 2017

It’s Settled: SCC says Future CPP Disability Benefits Are Not Deductible Under SEF 44 Endorsement

On January 27, 2017, the Supreme Court of Canada decided in Sabean v. Portage La Prairie Mutual Insurance Co. that...

We are pleased to provide you with detailed biographies on our lawyers, paralegals and administrative team, so you can learn more about how we can best support your business' success.

Advanced Filters

Contact

We want to hear from you: Did we delight you with great service or a timely insight? Did we miss the mark? Are you looking for legal advice? If so, we want to know. Just type a few lines into our form, send an email to client.service@mcinnescooper.com, or call 1-855-622-6668.

Charlottetown

Fredericton

Halifax

Moncton

Saint John

St. John’s

Send Us Feedback

Un moment s'il vous plaît...

We are pleased to provide you with detailed biographies on our lawyers, paralegals and administrative team, so you can learn more about how we can best support your business' success.

Advanced Filters

Contact

We want to hear from you: Did we delight you with great service or a timely insight? Did we miss the mark? Are you looking for legal advice? If so, we want to know. Just type a few lines into our form, send an email to client.service@mcinnescooper.com, or call 1-855-622-6668.

Charlottetown

Fredericton

Halifax

Moncton

Saint John

St. John’s

Send Us Feedback

Un moment s'il vous plaît...

Share this with others

Twitter

Facebook

Google +

LinkedIn

Email