Supreme Court


Agent breach obligation by not informing plaintiff of vacancy clause

Plaintiffs arranged insurance coverage through defendant for building. Building was damaged by vandalism while building was vacant. Defendant denied coverage on basis of vacancy clause in policy. Trial judge found plaintiff was not aware of vacancy provision. Trial judge found plaintiff relied on defendant to ensure coverage and appellant failed to advise about vacant exclusion. Plaintiffs were awarded damages of $16,737 for failure of defendant to provide insurance coverage for loss to dwelling that sustained damages while building was unoccupied. Defendant’s appeal was dismissed. Trial judge did not make palpable and overriding error in coming to factual conclusions. Trial judge correctly held that agent breached obligation by not telling plaintiff there would be no coverage when building was vacant.

Newbigging v. M. Butler Insurance Brokers Ltd. (Sep. 13, 2012, Ont. S.C.J., Maddalena J., File No. 53369/11) 220 A.C.W.S. (3d) 248.

cover image


Subscribers get early and easy access to Law Times.

Law Times Poll

Lawyers say a recent decision is one of many cases to come before the courts that illustrates how the legal system is grappling with valuing crypto-currency. Do you anticipate that in the next year you will encounter any cases or clients where crypto-currency is involved?