Simcoe & Erie General Insurance Co. v. Royal Insurance Co. of Canada and Federal Insurance Co., (1982) 36 A.R. 553 (QB)

• Judge: Kryczka, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: March 30, 1982
• Citations: (1982), 36 A.R. 553 (QB)

Simcoe & Erie Gen. Ins. Co. v. Royal Ins. (1982), 36 A.R. 553 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Simcoe & Erie General Insurance Company v. Royal Insurance Company of Canada and Federal Insurance Company

(No. 8001-22915)

Indexed As: Simcoe & Erie General Insurance Co. v. Royal Insurance Co. of Canada and Federal Insurance Co.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Calgary

Kryczka, J.

March 30, 1982

Summary:

The plaintiff insurance company brought an action against two defendant insurance companies to determine which insurance company was liable for the loss to the insured. The three insurance companies issued different policies of insurance to the insured, which covered all persons engaged in the design and construction of two bridges. One of the bridges collapsed and certain materials for the second bridge were damaged. The bridge collapsed, because of a design error by one of the engineers. The plaintiff provided professional liability insurance. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants, who provided all risk builders risk insurance and general liability insurance, were responsible for the loss suffered.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the plaintiff was liable for the cost of replacing the bridge. The court held the defendants were liable under the all risk builders risk insurance for the damage to materials for the second bridge.

Insurance - Topic 2945

Contribution among insurers - Two or more policies covering "same interest" - The plaintiff provided professional liability insurance and the defendant provided general liability insurance covering persons engaged in the design and construction of two bridges - One bridge collapsed, because of a design error by an engineer - The plaintiff claimed that the defendant was liable for the loss - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the defendant was not liable, because of an exclusion under the general policy - The court also held that the professional liability insurance was the more appropriate coverage for the loss - See paragraphs 40 to 43.

Insurance - Topic 6592

Multi-peril property insurance - Contractor's or builder's policies - Exclusions - Faulty work, materials or design - Two insurers provided all risk builders risk insurance covering persons engaged in the design and construction of two bridges - One bridge collapsed and materials for the second bridge were damaged - The insurers denied liability - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the insurers were excluded from liability to replace the bridge, because it was lost as a result of a design error, but were liable for the cost of the materials damaged, as a result of the error - See paragraphs 24, 31, 34 and 49.

Cases Noticed:

Commonwealth Construction Company v. Imperial Oil Ltd. et al. (1977), 69 D.L.R.(3d) 558 (S.C.C.), ref'd to. [para. 15].

Poole-Pritchard Canadian Limited and Armstrong Contracting Canada Limited v. Underwriting Members of Lloyds (1969), 71 W.W.R.(N.S.) 684, consd. [para. 30].

Poole Construction Ltd. v. Guardian Assurance Company, [1977] I.L.R. 1-879, consd. [para. 31].

Foundation Company of Canada Limited v. Aetna Casualty Company of Canada, [1975] I.L.R. 1-757, ref'd to. [para. 32].

Southern California Edison Company v. Harbor Insurance Company (1978), 148 Cal. R. 106 (C.A.), ref'd to. [para. 32].

Sayers and Associates Limited v. Insurance Corporation of Ireland et al., [1981] I.L.R. 1-1436, consd. [para. 33].

Foundation of Canada Engineering Corporation Limited v. Canadian Indemnity Company and Employers Liability Assurance Company Limited, [1977] 2 W.W.R. 75, consd. [para. 44].

Counsel:

R.A.F. Montgomery, Q.C., for the plaintiff;

D.A. McDermott, for the defendant Royal Insurance Company of Canada;

W.E. Code, Q.C., for the defendant Federal Insurance Company.

This case was heard before KRYCZKA, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Calgary, who delivered the following judgment on March 30, 1982.