Skip to content

Brought to you by

Dentons logo

Dentons Canada Insurance Law Review

Updates on key developments in Canadian insurance law by a national team of experienced lawyers.

open menu close menu

Dentons Canada Insurance Law Review

  • Home
  • About us

Case Comment: Condo. Corp No. 0427067 v. Aviva Canada Inc., 2019 ABQB 678

By Simon Elzen-Hoskyn
September 17, 2019
  • Coverage
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via email Share on LinkedIn

Introduction

A new decision from the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench provides a caution to insureds to double check the accuracy of a denial of coverage. Failure to investigate a denial made in error may mean a plaintiff is out of luck if it tries to bring a claim after the expiry of two years from the date of denial.

The Plaintiff Condominium Corporation (Condo Corp) brought a claim arising from the denial of a claim for water damage to a condominium known as the Palisades Park Villas in Edmonton (Property). In this case, the various insurers, who were subscribers to the Condo Corp’s policy of insurance, applied for summary dismissal of the claim on the basis that it was brought after the limitation period expired.

Facts

Water damage to the Property was discovered on June 29, 2011. On December 8, 2011, the Condo Corp’s property manager contacted the insurance adjuster. Over the next few days, the adjuster received documentation in relation to the damage from the property manager. The Condo Corp’s broker provided a Notice of Loss to the adjuster. The adjuster advised Aviva, the lead subscriber, of the claim. Aviva instructed the adjuster to deny the claim.

A formal denial was issued on March 23, 2012. However, the denial contained wording and exclusions from a renewal of the relevant insurance policy that took effect on July 1, 2011, after the date of loss. A careful reading would have revealed that the denial was based upon an error.  

Having realized this a number of years after the fact, the Condo Corp filed its Statement of Claim on June 7, 2017. The insurers raised a limitations defence and declined to reconsider its disallowance in the context of the policy wording that was in effect on the date of loss.

Limitations arguments

The Condo Corp argued that the limitation period could not begin to run because the denial was based on a misrepresentation. Master Smart could not agree with this argument, saying “at the point of denial, the Plaintiff had a responsibility to exercise due diligence and not simply rely on the Denial Letter without more” (at para 15).

However, Master Smart left open the possibility that “a reasonable time to investigate would extend the limitation period beyond two years from the date of denial” (at para 16). In his view, the limitation period would run “from the discovery of the error” in the Denial Letter, and would include “a reasonable time for investigation (if any) from the date of the Denial Letter” (at para 18). However, in this case, even allowing an extraordinary period to investigate, such as a full year, the claim ought to have been issued much earlier than it was.

The Condo Corp also sought to rely on the equitable remedy of relief from forfeiture. However, Master Smart found the Plaintiff was “making a distinction without a difference when seeking this relief amounting to an extension of the limitation period that could not otherwise be granted” (at para 19).

Ultimately, the Court was satisfied that summary dismissal was appropriate. While it was “undeniable” that errors occurred, there was no authority to support that the errors postponed the running of the limitation period. 

Property owners ought to review denials of coverage carefully to ensure they do not allow the limitation period to run out because of an inadvertent error. Insurers ought to be sure to double check the accuracy of any denial of coverage, as this case indicates that “a reasonable time to investigate” may extend the limitation period beyond two years from the date of denial.

For more information about this case, please contact Simon Elzen-Hoskyn or another member of Dentons’ Insurance group.

To read the case in its entirety here, please visit Condo Corp No. 0427067 v. Aviva Canada Inc.

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via email Share on LinkedIn
Subscribe and stay updated
Receive our latest blog posts by email.
Stay in Touch
Simon Elzen-Hoskyn

About Simon Elzen-Hoskyn

Simon Elzen-Hoskyn is an associate in our Litigation and Dispute Resolution group, whose practice emphasizes construction, employment and constitutional law matters. Simon has advised contractors and owners on various matters, including delay and scheduling disputes and claims for defective and/or incomplete work. He has advised both employers and employees on wrongful dismissal claims and human rights complaints. Simon also has experience in constitutional litigation and advises on a wide range of commercial disputes.

All posts Full bio

RELATED POSTS

  • Automobile
  • Coverage
  • Insurance
  • Insurance regulatory

Automobile insurance: Exclusion to Section C regarding theft by persons residing with insured

By Robert Gilroy
  • Coverage

Part 3: Business interruption considerations in professional liability insurance (Canada)

By Deepshikha Dutt
  • Coverage
  • Insurance
  • Insurance regulatory

Court of Appeal clarifies the scope of physical damage in business loss claims

By Douglas B. B. Stewart and Rebecca Curcio

About Dentons

Redefining possibilities. Together, everywhere. For more information visit dentons.com

Grow, Protect, Operate, Finance. Dentons, the law firm of the future is here. Copyright 2023 Dentons. Dentons is a global legal practice providing client services worldwide through its member firms and affiliates. Please see dentons.com for Legal notices.

Categories

  • Automobile
  • Construction and Design
  • Coverage
  • D&O and E&O Insurance
  • Environmental
  • General
  • Insurance
  • Insurance regulatory
  • Mergers and Acquisitions
  • Misc.
  • Securities/Class Actions
  • Tort Liability
Dentons logo in black and white

© 2025 Dentons

  • Legal notices
  • Privacy policy
  • Terms of use
  • Cookies on this site