We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.

Search results

Order by: most recent most popular relevance



Results:1-10 of 115

Appeal court confirms nightclub accident outside scope of professional insurance
  • McMillan LLP
  • Canada
  • January 15 2013

In what may be the final chapter of long and protracted legal proceedings, the British Columbia Court of Appeal recently issued its decision in Poole


Progressive Homes v. Lombard General Insurance Company of Canada
  • Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
  • Canada
  • April 5 2011

The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Progressive Homes v. Lombard General Insurance Company of Canada (September, 2010), now represents the leading decision on the issues of “property damage”, “occurrence” or “accident”, and the scope of work performed exclusions in commercial general liability (CGL) policies.


The insurer's duty to defend where a municipality was exercising a legislative power
  • Norton Rose Fulbright
  • Canada
  • December 6 2010

On October 25, 2010, the Quebec Court of Appeal handed down a ruling on an insurer's duty to defend its insured under a liability policy issued for the benefit of a municipality.


Interpreting the scope of commercial general liability insurance policies and the duty to defend following the supreme court of canada's decision in progressive homes
  • Gowling WLG
  • Canada
  • October 20 2010

The Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Progressive Homes Ltd. Progressive Homes Ltd. v. Lombard General Insurance Company of Canada, 2010 SCC 33, which was rendered on September 23, 2010, has important consequences for the interpretation of the scope of commercial general liability (“CGL”) insurance policies and the duty to defend claims for environmental liabilities.


Supreme Court finds coverage for construction defect claim
  • McMillan LLP
  • Canada
  • October 13 2010

In Progressive Homes Ltd v Lombard General Insurance Co. of Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that a general contractor’s defective workmanship can constitute an “accident”, thereby triggering an insurance company’s duty to defend a general contractor against construction deficiency claims.


Duty to defend turns on nature of plaintiff's allegations and on policy language
  • Norton Rose Fulbright
  • Canada
  • October 13 2010

In a very recent judgment pertaining to a commercial general liability (CGL) policy, the Supreme Court of Canada has reiterated that the duty to defend is triggered by the mere possibility that a claim is covered by the insurance policy and does not depend on actual liability or on an actual duty to indemnify.


Risky business is no accident
  • McMillan LLP
  • Canada
  • March 30 2010

A recent Supreme Court of Canada ("SCC") ruling provides assistance and context to those interpreting accident insurance policies.


The definition of accident: a philosophically complex simple question
  • McCarthy Tétrault LLP
  • Canada
  • March 26 2010

In the recently released decision of the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) in Co-operators Life Insurance Co. v. Gibbens, the court had to struggle with the meaning of the word “accident” in a group accident insurance policy.


Regulatory jurisdiction
  • Stikeman Elliott LLP
  • Canada
  • March 19 2010

In this case, the plaintiff Royal Bank (RBC) sought to enforce its mortgage rights against the defendants by way of summary judgment.


Michael Turrini
  • White & Case LLP