3764525 Manitoba Ltd. v. CGU Insurance Co. of Canada, 2006 MBCA 35

• Judge: Scott, C.J.M., Huband and Kroft, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Manitoba)
• Case Date: March 14, 2006
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: 2006 MBCA 35;(2006), 205 Man.R.(2d) 19 (CA)

3764525 Man. v. CGU Ins. (2006), 205 Man.R.(2d) 19 (CA);

    375 W.A.C. 19

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2006] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. MR.029

3764525 Manitoba Ltd. o/a Roadshow Sound o/a Midnight Sound (plaintiff/applicant/appellant) v. CGU Insurance Company of Canada (defendant/respondent/respondent)

(AI 04-30-05950; 2006 MBCA 35)

Indexed As: 3764525 Manitoba Ltd. v. CGU Insurance Co. of Canada

Manitoba Court of Appeal

Scott, C.J.M., Huband and Kroft, JJ.A.

March 14, 2006.

Summary:

A fire destroyed a warehouse occupied by the corporate plaintiff, a music and sound business. The defendant insured the plaintiff for fire loss and for business interruption and other incidental coverage. The plaintiff claimed under the policy following the fire, but the defendant insurer denied liability, alleging, inter alia, arson.

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported 183 Man.R.(2d) 13, dismissed the plaintiff's claim. The plaintiff appealed.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal where there was no palpable or overriding error with respect to any of the trial judge's factual findings or the inferences that he chose to draw from such findings.

Insurance - Topic 6046

Fire insurance - Defences - Deliberate act of insured - General - A fire destroyed a warehouse occupied by the corporate plaintiff, a music and sound business - The defendant insured the plaintiff for fire loss and for business interruption and other incidental coverage, but denied liability, alleging arson - The trial judge dismissed the corporate plaintiff's claim under the insurance policy - The plaintiff appealed - The Manitoba Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal where there was ample evidence to support the conclusions of the trial judge - The explosion was clearly a consequence of arson and the plaintiff's principal had a motive and the opportunity to either commit the arson himself or to be a party to the arson - There was no palpable or overriding error respecting any of the trial judge's factual findings or the inferences that he chose to draw from such findings.

Counsel:

N.H. Kravetsky, for the applicant/appellant;

M.G. Finlayson, for the respondent/respondent.

This appeal was heard on March 14, 2006, before Scott, C.J.M., Huband and Kroft, JJ.A., of the Manitoba Court of Appeal. Scott, C.J.M., delivered the following judgment for the court on March 14, 2006.