Background
In April 2013, the respondent, Shayne Campbell, was involved in a dirt bike accident. He collided with an ATV (all-terrain vehicle), injuring the ATV driver. In April 2015, Mr. Campbell was sued for negligence.
Mr. Campbell’s automobile insurer, The Guarantee Company of North America (Guarantee), had Mr. Campbell sign a non-waiver agreement and issued a reservation of rights letter before ultimately denying coverage.
The appellant, Commonwell Mutual Insurance Group (Commonwell), held Mr. Campbell’s homeowner’s policy. In June 2015, without securing a non-waiver agreement or issuing a reservation of rights letter, Commonwell appointed a lawyer to defend the claim against Mr. Campbell, pleadings were exchanged, and other steps detailed below were taken.
In March 2016, Commonwell advised Mr. Campbell in writing that they were denying coverage, and would be moving for declaration that Commonwell was not obligated to defend or indemnify him. In taking this position, Commonwell was invoking an exemption from coverage in the policy for vehicles not owned by the insured that were “required to be registered under any government authority.”
Ontario Superior Court of Justice
In August 2016, Commonwell brought an application seeking declarations that Mr. Campbell did not have coverage, nor was Commonwell obliged to defend him.
In October 2018, the application judge denied the application, holding that Commonwell had either waived its right to deny coverage and refuse to defend, or was estopped from doing so. Commonwell appealed this decision.
Court of Appeal for Ontario
The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Commonwell’s appeal. It was held that Commonwell had not persuaded the Court of Appeal for Ontario that the application judge made a palpable and overriding error in their finding of detrimental reliance on behalf of Mr. Campbell.
Where Guarantee issued a non-waiver agreement and reservation of rights letter, before it denied coverage Commonwell, appointed counsel for Mr. Campbell, prepared a Statement of Defence and made tactical decisions with respect to the case. The action proceeded to the examination for discovery stage as the plaintiff’s counsel was seeking information regarding coverage issues.
The lawyer Commonwell appointed for Mr. Campbell acted for him for 10 months before Commonwell gave Mr. Campbell any reason to believe his liability was not covered and he would not be defended. As such, the Court of Appeal for Ontario upheld the application judge’s position in that the litigation was well advanced, and permitting no coverage or duty to defend Mr. Campbell, would be detrimental to Mr. Campbell.
Conclusion
This decision is important because it highlights the need for due diligence and promptness required of the insurers (and to a certain extent, their counsel), and demonstrates that the courts will consider whether an insurer addressed the question of coverage prior to advancing litigation.
The Commonwell decision demonstrates that taking steps to move files forward and litigate without addressing the issue of coverage can actually be used as evidence to deny insurers their right to deny coverage and refuse to defend, or sometimes even estop them from doing so. As such, insurers (and their counsel) should conduct due diligence regarding coverage issues before proceeding with litigation.
For more information, please contact Bogdan Miscevic or another member of Dentons’ Insurance group.
