Grafton Connor Group of Properties v. Murphy et al., 2015 NSSC 195

JudgeLeblanc, J.
CourtSupreme Court of Nova Scotia (Canada)
Case DateOctober 30, 2014
JurisdictionNova Scotia
Citations2015 NSSC 195;(2015), 362 N.S.R.(2d) 290 (SC)

Grafton Connor Group v. Murphy (2015), 362 N.S.R.(2d) 290 (SC);

    1142 A.P.R. 290

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] N.S.R.(2d) TBEd. JL.009

Grafton Connor Property Incorporated, a Body Corporate, C.O.B. Grafton-Connor Group, and Beauforth Investments Incorporated, a Body Corporate, C.O.B. North End Beverage Room (plaintiffs) v. Sean Murphy, in His Quality as Attorney in Fact in Canada for Lloyd's of London Underwriters and Marsh Canada Limited, a body corporate (respondent)

(Hfx. No. 293148; 2015 NSSC 195)

Indexed As: Grafton Connor Group of Properties v. Murphy et al.

Nova Scotia Supreme Court

Leblanc, J.

June 30, 2015.

Summary:

The insured's pub was destroyed by fire. The insurer of the insured's eight separate commercial properties, including the pub, denied coverage on the basis of material misrepresentation respecting the pub having a sprinkler system and being entirely of masonry construction. The insured sued for indemnity, seeking consequential damages for the delay in rebuilding, and aggravated and punitive damages. The insured argued that Endorsement 10 of the policy precluded the insurer from voiding coverage for unintentional misrepresentations. Alternatively, the insured argued that the insurer negligently assessed the risk of the pub. If the insurer was entitled to void the policy, the insured claimed against the broker in contract and tort. The insurer counterclaimed for the monies it spent to have debris removed from the site after the fire. The insurer claimed that it was not liable to do so and that the insured had been unjustly enriched.

The Nova Scotia Supreme Court held that the insurer was entitled to void the policy for material misrepresentation. Endorsement 10 did not excuse unintentional material misrepresentations. The insurer was not liable for negligently failing to assess the risk, as it had no duty to investigate the accuracy of the information provided by the insured to ensure that there were no material misrepresentations. The broker was negligent in failing to determine whether the insured had the necessary training and experience to accurately complete the insurance application on its own. However, the insured was contributorily negligent in failing to ensure that its representative placing the insurance had sufficient knowledge of the properties to place coverage. The court apportioned liability equally between the insured and broker. Consequential damages against the insurer were denied, as there was no breach of the duty of good faith. Damages were assessed against the broker and the claim for aggravated and punitive damages was denied. Respecting the value of the claim under the policy, the co-insurance provision did not apply. The policy was a blanket policy, not a scheduled policy. The court allowed the insurer's counterclaim against the insured for the return of monies paid to remove debris.

Damages - Topic 532

Limits of compensatory damages - Remoteness - Torts - Recoverable damages - Consequential economic loss -An insured's pub was destroyed by fire - The insurance policy was voided by the insurer for material misrepresentation - The broker was found liable in negligence for the policy being voided (insured contributorily negligent and 50% at fault) - The insured, rather than just rebuilding the pub, planned an eight storey mixed use building with a pub on the bottom floor - The litigation over coverage delayed construction, as the insured lacked the financial resources to construct the building without the insurance proceeds - In addition to the lost insurance proceeds, the insured claimed consequential damages for (1) increased construction costs caused by the delay; (2) lost profits from the redeveloped property during the delay; and (3) lost profits from the inability to obtain VLT's (the major source of income from the pub) - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court held that it was reasonably foreseeable to the broker that without the insurance monies the insured could not afford to rebuild - Reasonably foreseeable consequential damages included the increased construction costs to rebuild the pub (but not increased costs of constructing an eight storey multi-use building) - Also included were the lost profits from a rebuilt stand-alone pub for the delay period, but not lost profits during the delay for the planned mixed use project - It was not reasonably foreseeable that a lengthy delay in payment of insurance proceeds would result in the loss of the pub's entitlement to have the destroyed VLT machines replaced - See paragraphs 435 to 538.

Damages - Topic 905

Aggravation - General - Aggravated damages - Claim for - [See Damages - Topic 1310 ].

Damages - Topic 1310

Exemplary or punitive damages - Negligence - An insured's pub was destroyed by fire - The insurance policy was voided by the insurer for material misrepresentation - The broker was found liable in negligence for the policy being voided (insured contributorily negligent and 50% at fault) - The insurer had still not refunded the insured's premiums, as it was required to do - The insured claimed punitive and aggravated damages against the insurer and the broker - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court dismissed the claim against both - The insurer's breach of its obligation to return the premiums was a breach of its duty of good faith, but was not "so high-handed and oppressive as to cause the degree of suffering contemplated by an award of aggravated damages. Nor do I find the failure to return the premium to be so shocking, outrageous or malicious as to merit an award of punitive damages" - The court was not satisfied that the broker's carelessness "was high-handed, or caused [the insured] the increased distress essential to an award of aggravated damages. Nor was it sufficiently outrageous or shocking to justify punitive damages. Punitive damages are available only where all other penalties are inadequate to accomplish the objectives of retribution, deterrence and denunciation. In this case, the damages ordered against [the broker] as a result of its negligence are substantial enough to achieve these objectives." - See paragraphs 539 to 577.

Evidence - Topic 7069

Opinion evidence - Expert evidence - Particular matters - Handwriting analysis - A claims adjuster with the insurer was permitted to testify that the "scratch" or initials of a lead underwriter on two documents belonged to the same person - The insured had objected to the testimony on the ground that the adjuster was not a handwriting expert - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court held that the opinion evidence from the lay witness was admissible - The adjuster had developed a familiarity with the individual "scratches" of the lead underwriters and accumulated the experience necessary to opine on whether the scratches in question belonged to the same underwriter - See paragraphs 20 to 25.

Evidence - Topic 7112

Opinion evidence - Nonexpert evidence - Admissibility - [See Evidence - Topic 7069 ].

Insurance - Topic 506

Agents - Liability of agent - General - Duty to inquire respecting property insured - Following destruction of the insured's premises by fire, the insurer denied coverage because the policy was voided by a material misrepresentation that the premises had a sprinkler system and was entirely of masonry construction - The insured claimed indemnity from its broker, claiming that but for the broker's negligence, the misrepresentations would not have been made - Particulars of the negligence were: that the misrepresentation respecting the sprinkler system originated with the broker; the broker failed to advise the insured to obtain an inspection; the broker failed to warn the insured of the importance of the accuracy of the annual Locations Detail Summary; and the broker had notice and possession of a prior inspection report which it failed to provide to the insurer - The broker argued that it had no duty to independently verify an insured's representations - Alternatively, the broker argued that the insured was contributorily negligent - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court held that the broker breached the standard of care of a reasonable broker by failing to make inquiries to ascertain whether the insured's representative had the necessary training or experience to accurately complete the insurance application for eight commercial properties - If not, the broker had a duty to discuss the benefits of property inspections - The broker did not have a further duty to verify that the insured obtained such an inspection - Although the broker was also negligent in failing to obtain an inspection report it knew existed, there was no causal connection between that breach and the loss - However, the insured's lackadaisical approach to obtaining coverage without determining whether its information was accurate constituted contributory negligence - The court apportioned fault equally between the broker and the insured - See paragraphs 147 to 333.

Insurance - Topic 513

Agents - Liability of agent - General - Negligence - Duty of agent to inform and to obtain coverage - [See Insurance - Topic 6562 ].

Insurance - Topic 632

Brokers - Relations with clients - Duties of broker - [See Insurance - Topic 506 and Insurance - Topic 6562 ].

Insurance - Topic 722

Insurers - Duties - Duty to inquire - An insured's application for fire insurance misrepresented that the insured premises had a sprinkler system and was entirely masonry construction - There was no sprinkler system and the premises were only partially masonry - The premises were destroyed by fire - The insurer denied coverage on the ground that the policy was voided by material misrepresentation - The insured argued that if the policy was voided by material misrepresentation, the insurer could not rely on its own negligent failure to assess the risk to deny coverage - It argued that had the insurer made proper inquiries (e.g., required an inspection of the properties), the unintentional misrepresentations would have been discovered and the insured could have obtained coverage elsewhere had the insurer declined to insure - The insurer argued that it had sufficient information from the insured (through the broker) to make a prudent underwriting decision and that, absent "red flags" requiring further inquiries, it had no duty to investigate the accuracy of the information provided by the insured - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court held that "Under the doctrine of utmost good faith, an applicant for insurance must completely disclose to the insurer all information relevant to the risk. If the underwriter feels that the information provided by the applicant is sufficient to make a prudent underwriting decision, and there are no red flags to suggest that the information is false, the underwriter is under no obligation to take further investigatory steps, or ask additional questions to test the accuracy of that information. That being said, if the underwriter knows that certain information is material to the risk and fails to make inquiries that would produce that information, it does so at its peril. ... That is not the situation here. [The insurer] did not deny coverage on the basis of a failure by [the insured] to disclose information that [the insurer] knew was material to its assessment of the risk but chose not to ask about. It denied coverage on the basis that the information provided by [the insured], upon which it relied in determining a premium, turned out to be false. Having found that there is no duty on an underwriter to thoroughly investigate the risk in order to unearth misrepresentations by the insured, there is no basis for liability on the part of [the insurer] for the value of the claim under the Policy." - See paragraphs 126 to 146.

Insurance - Topic 730

Insurers - Duties - Duty of good faith - [See Damages - Topic 1310 ].

Insurance - Topic 1105

The contract - Formation of the contract - Place contract made - [See Insurance - Topic 5913 ].

Insurance - Topic 1686

The contract - Duty of insured - Respecting coverage - Contributory negligence - [See Insurance - Topic 506 ].

Insurance - Topic 2446

Applicant's duty of disclosure - Materiality - Material matters - [See Insurance - Topic 2481 ].

Insurance - Topic 2481

Applicant's duty of disclosure - Default in duty to disclose - Remedies of insurer - An insured's application for fire insurance misrepresented that the insured premises had a sprinkler system and was entirely masonry construction - There was no sprinkler system and the premises were only partially masonry - The premises were destroyed by fire - The insurer denied coverage on the ground that the policy was voided by material misrepresentation - Endorsement 10 of the policy provided that "unintentional error or omission made by the Insured shall not void or impair the insurance hereunder provided the Insured reports such error or omission as soon as reasonably possible after discovery" - The insured argued that Endorsement 10 excused unintentional material misrepresentations - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court held that Endorsement 10 was "intended to cover minor errors or omissions by an insured that do not materially affect the risk undertaken by the insurer ... 'formal errors' are what the provision contemplates" - The misrepresentations made were material misrepresentations that voided coverage - The insurer would not have insured a mixed construction building with no sprinklers on the same terms as it insured a masonry building with 100% sprinkler coverage - The misrepresentations, considered together, were subjectively and objectively material to the risk - Had those risks been disclosed, the insurer would have charged a higher premium for coverage - See paragraphs 58 to 125.

Insurance - Topic 2490

Applicant's duty of disclosure - Default in duty to disclose - Misrepresentation - What constitutes - [See Insurance - Topic 2481 ].

Insurance - Topic 3307

Payment of insurance proceeds - Actions - Defences - Misrepresentation in application - [See Insurance - Topic 2481 ].

Insurance - Topic 5913

Fire insurance - The loss - Liability of insurer - Co-insurance clause - Validity of - The declared replacement value of an insured premise destroyed by fire was $980,000, being $650,000 for the building and $180,000 for contents - The actual replacement cost was $2,740,869.16, being $2,174,514.02 for the building, $411,357.61 for the contents and $411,357.11 for business interruption - The policy was a blanket policy covering eight properties, with a total declared value of $17,596,263 in 2007 and an actual insurable value of $19,705,018.16 - The co-insurance provision of the policy in Endorsement 10 provided that "in the event of any error or omission including a declaration of the Insured's total insurable values being less than (80%) eighty percent of the actual insurable values at the time of declaration, any loss payable in respect of the property involved or other insurable interests in the loss shall be reduced in the proportion that the said actual insurable value bears to the declared insurable value ..." - Co-insurance was never explained to the insured - Section 170 of the Insurance Act provided that a co-insurance clause, in an insurance policy "made in Nova Scotia", was not binding on an insured unless it met certain notice requirements (warning printed or stamped in red ink or bold print of certain font size) - The warning did not appear on the policy - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court held that the co-insurance clause did not apply - First, the insurance contract was made in London, England, not Nova Scotia - In any event, the co-insurance provision did not apply because the actual values for 2006 would not have been greater than the actual values for 2007 and, based on those figures, the declaration of the insured's total insurable value was not less than 80% of the actual insurable values - See paragraphs 401 to 433.

Insurance - Topic 6562

Multi-peril property insurance - Business policies - Extent of coverage - An insurance policy covered eight separate commercial premises owned by the insured - One of the premises was destroyed by fire - If the policy was a blanket or open policy, then the policy provided a global maximum limit for any particular loss - If the policy was a scheduled or value policy, then the maximum coverage for any one of the eight premises was limited to the value attributed to that premise in a schedule of values assigned to each of the premises - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court held that the policy was a blanket policy - There was no breakdown of the individual premises covered by the policy, nor their respective values - The policy made no reference to the Location Details Summary or any other schedule of values - There was nothing about the format or content of the Location Details Summary to suggest that it was intended to form part of the policy - Accordingly, the policy covered the full replacement costs of the pub, even though it exceeded the declared value of the pub in the Location Details Summary - If the policy was a scheduled policy, the broker who obtained coverage for the insured would be liable for the loss exceeding the stated value, as the broker negligently failed to advise the insured the replacement cost values were required for each of the eight properties - The broker failed to respond to clear signs that the insured was not providing replacement cost values - See paragraphs 335 to 376.

Cases Noticed:

Ford v. Dominion of Canada General Insurance Co. (1989), 62 Man.R.(2d) 244; 1989 CarswellMan 98 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 52].

Coronation Insurance Co. et al. v. Taku Air Transport Ltd. et al., [1991] 3 S.C.R. 622; 131 N.R. 241; 6 B.C.A.C. 161; 13 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 52].

Carter v. Boehm (1766), 3 Burr. 1905, refd to. [para. 52].

Stuart (W.H.) Mutuals Ltd. v. London Guarantee Insurance Co. (2004), 193 O.A.C. 201; 16 C.C.L.I.(4th) 192 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused [2005] 1 S.C.R. xvii; 343 N.R. 196; 207 O.A.C. 399, refd to. [para. 53].

1018202 Ontario Ltd. v. Hamilton Township Farmers' Mutual Fire Insurance Co. (2006), 209 O.A.C. 127; 2006 CarswellOnt 2279, refd to. [para. 55].

Creston Moly Corp. v. Sattva Capital Corp. (2014), 461 N.R. 335; 358 B.C.A.C. 1; 614 W.A.C. 1; 2014 SCC 53, refd to. [para. 61].

Jesuit Fathers of Upper Canada v. Guardian Insurance Co. of Canada et al., [2006] 1 S.C.R. 744; 348 N.R. 307; 211 O.A.C. 363; 2006 SCC 21, refd to. [para. 61].

Consolidated-Bathurst Export Ltd. v. Mutual Boiler and Machinery Insurance Co., [1980] 1 S.C.R. 888; 32 N.R. 488, refd to. [para. 64].

Brissette v. Westbury Life Insurance Co., [1992] 3 S.C.R. 87; 142 N.R. 104; 58 O.A.C. 10, refd to. [para. 65].

Reid Crowther & Partners Ltd. v. Simcoe & Erie General Insurance Co., [1993] 1 S.C.R. 252; 147 N.R. 44; 83 Man.R.(2d) 81; 36 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 65].

Highlands Insurance Co. v. Continental Insurance Co., [1987] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 109 (Com. Ct.), refd to. [para. 70].

Pan Atlantic Insurance Co. et al. v. Pine Top Insurance Co., [1993] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 496, affd. [1994] 3 All E.R. 581; 171 N.R. 81 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. 72, 74].

Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Ontario Metal Products Co., [1925] 1 D.L.R. 583 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 81].

Sagl v. Cosburn, Griffiths & Brandham Insurance Brokers Ltd. et al. (2009), 249 O.A.C. 234; 2009 ONCA 388, refd to. [para. 81].

Taylor v. London Assurance Corp., [1935] S.C.R. 422, refd to. [para. 81].

Wells v. Canadian Northern Shield Insurance Co. et al., [2007] B.C.T.C. Uned. G95; 2007 BCSC 1844, refd to. [para. 81].

Silva v. Sizoo et al. (1997), 48 O.T.C. 347 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 139].

Armstrong v. North West Life Insurance Co. of Canada, [1990] B.C.J. No. 1690 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 142].

Lafarge Canada Inc. v. Little Mountain Excavating Ltd. et al., [2001] B.C.T.C. 218; 2001 BCSC 218, refd to. [para. 142].

Sholidis v. Economical Mutual Insurance Co. et al., [2005] O.A.C. Uned. 256; [2005] I.L.R. I-4438 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 142].

Fleet v. Federated Life Insurance Co. of Canada et al. (2009), 279 N.S.R.(2d) 372; 887 A.P.R. 372; 2009 NSCA 76, refd to. [para. 144].

Fine's Flowers Ltd. v. General Accident Assurance Co. of Canada, 1977 CarswellOnt 54 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 281].

Fletcher v. Manitoba Public Insurance Co., [1990] 3 S.C.R. 191; 116 N.R. 1; 71 Man.R.(2d) 81; 44 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 284].

Biggar v. Rock Life Assurance Co., [1902] 1 K.B. 516 (K.B.), refd to. [para. 289].

O'Connor v. BDB Kirby & Co., [1971] 2 All E.R. 1415 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 290].

Wolfe et al. v. Western General Mutual Insurance et al., [2000] O.T.C. Uned. 768; 2000 CarswellOnt 2541 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 292].

Goodbrand v. Pearson Insurance Brokers Ltd., [2001] O.T.C. 295 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 295].

Edwards v. Kent General Insurance Corp. (1986), 77 N.B.R.(2d) 9; 195 A.P.R. 9; 1982 CarswellNB 259 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 298].

Strougal v. Coast Capital Insurance Services Ltd. et al., [2008] B.C.T.C. Uned. A07; 2008 CarswellBC 116; 2008 BCSC 17, refd to. [para. 301].

Keizer v. Portage LaPrairie Mutual Insurance Co. et al. (2013), 331 N.S.R.(2d) 134; 1051 A.P.R. 134; 2013 NSSC 118, refd to. [para. 310].

A. Melchoir & Son Ltd. v. Insurance Corp. of Ireland Ltd., [1987] O.J. No. 321 (H.C.J.), refd to. [para. 339].

Freesman v. Royal Insurance Co. of Canada, [1986] O.J. No. 674 (H.C.J.), affd. [1988] O.J. No. 3020 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 339].

Sunburst Skylight Ltd. v. Lloyd's Underwriters, [2010] B.C.T.C. Uned. 714; 2010 BCSC 714, refd to. [para. 339].

Fair Grounds Corp. v. Travelers Indemnity Co. of Illinois (1999), 742 So.2d 1069; 1999 La App Lexis 2650, refd to. [para. 364].

Vernon Fire and Casualty Co. v. Sharp (1976), 254 Ind. 603; 349 N.E.2d 173, refd to. [para. 364].

Khoury v. Constitution Insurance Co. of Canada et al. (1979), 33 N.S.R.(2d) 503; 57 A.P.R. 503 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 415].

Maritime Drywall Ltd. v. Commercial Union Assurance Co. (1980), 42 N.S.R.(2d) 570; 77 A.P.R. 570 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 415].

Martinello v. Travellers Indemnity Co. of Canada et al. (1976), 14 O.R.(2d) 66 (H.C.J.), refd to. [para. 426].

702535 Ontario Inc. et al. v. Non-Marine Underwriters, Lloyd's, London et al., [2000] I.L.R. I-3826; 130 O.A.C. 373 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 444].

Forestex Management Corp. et al. v. Lloyd's Underwriters et al., [2004] F.T.R. Uned. 749; 2004 CarswellNat 3344; 2004 FC 1303, refd to. [para. 445].

Wonderful Ventures Ltd. v. Maylam et al., [2001] B.C.T.C. 775; 2001 CarswellBC 1516; 2001 BCSC 775, refd to. [para. 445].

Baudisch v. Co-operators General Insurance Co. (2004), 373 A.R. 270; 2004 CarswellAlta 1705; 2004 ABPC 229, refd to. [para. 445].

All-Up Consulting Enterprises Inc. et al. v. Dalrymple et al. (2013), 327 N.S.R.(2d) 41; 1036 A.P.R. 41; 2013 NSSC 46, refd to. [para. 484].

Lagden v. O'Connor, [2003] UKHL 64; [2004] 1 All E.R. 277, refd to. [para. 484].

Mustapha v. Culligan of Canada Ltd. (2008), 375 N.R. 81; 238 O.A.C. 130; 2008 SCC 27, refd to. [para. 484].

Barthe v. National Bank Financial Ltd. (2015), 359 N.S.R.(2d) 258; 1133 A.P.R. 258; 2015 NSCA 47, refd to. [para. 542].

Whiten v. Pilot Insurance Co. et al. (2002), 283 N.R. 1; 156 O.A.C. 201; 2002 SCC 18, refd to. [para. 543].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Billingsley, Barbara, General Principles of Canadian Insurance Law (2nd Ed. 2014), p. 266 [para. 338].

Boivin, Dennis, Insurance Law (2004), pp. 114 [para. 56]; 134 [para. 82]; 165 [para. 269].

Brown, Craig, Insurance Law in Canada (2014 looseleaf update), p. 5-5 [para. 53].

Bryant, Alan W., Lederman, Sydney N., and Fuerst, Michelle K., The Law of Evidence in Canada (4th Ed. 2014), p. 780 [para. 24].

Hall, Geoff, Canadian Contractual Interpretation Law (2nd Ed. 2012), p. 207 [para. 64].

Hilliker, Gordon G., Insurance Bad Faith (3rd Ed. 2015), p. 120 [para. 443].

Paciocco, David M., and Stuesser, Lee, The Law of Evidence in Canada (6th Ed. 2011), p. 183 [para. 23].

Counsel:

John P. Merrick, Q.C., Darlene Jamieson, Q.C., and Tammy Manning, for the plaintiffs;

Michael S. Ryan, Q.C., and Richard W. Norman, for the defendant, Sean Murphy;

Christopher C. Robinson, Q.C., Kevin Gibson and Ian Dunbar, for the defendant, Marsh Canada Limited.

This action was heard on June 9-13, 16-20, 23-27 and 30, July 2-4, and October 30, 2014, at Halifax, N.S., before Leblanc, J., of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court, who delivered the following judgment on June 30, 2015.

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 practice notes
  • Grafton Connor Property Inc. v. Murphy et al., (2015) 368 N.S.R.(2d) 233 (SC)
    • Canada
    • Nova Scotia Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (Canada)
    • 19 Octubre 2015
    ...it was not liable to do so and that the insured had been unjustly enriched. The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, in a judgment reported (2015), 362 N.S.R.(2d) 290; 1142 A.P.R. 290 , held that the insurer was entitled to void the policy for material misrepresentation. Endorsement 10 did not excus......
  • Grafton Connor Group v. Murphy,
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (Canada)
    • 7 Enero 2022
    ...the Defendant, Marsh, in the Nova Scotia Supreme Court decision Grafton Connor Property Inc. (c.o.b. Grafton-Connor Group) v. Murphy, 2015 NSSC 195.  The Grafton Connor Group of companies is solely owned by its President, Gary Hurst.  Marsh insured a building owned by Beaufort Inv......
  • Atlantic Canada Case Law Updates - October 2015
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • 6 Noviembre 2015
    ...Insurance coverage refused on the basis of an unintentional misrepresentation on insurance policy Grafton Connor Property Inc. v Murphy, 2015 NSSC 195 In 2007, the North-End Pub in Halifax was destroyed by fire. It was owned by Grafton Connor and insured by Lloyd's of London Underwriters un......
  • Schellenberg v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company, 2019 BCSC 196
    • Canada
    • British Columbia Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
    • 19 Febrero 2019
    ...the standard of care can be ascertained through the jurisprudence and other evidence, citing Grafton Connor Property Inc. v. Murphy, 2015 NSSC 195, without reference to the appeal decision: 2017 NSCA 54. [114] The facts in Grafton involved a pub that was consumed by fire. The building was o......
3 cases
  • Grafton Connor Property Inc. v. Murphy et al., (2015) 368 N.S.R.(2d) 233 (SC)
    • Canada
    • Nova Scotia Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (Canada)
    • 19 Octubre 2015
    ...it was not liable to do so and that the insured had been unjustly enriched. The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, in a judgment reported (2015), 362 N.S.R.(2d) 290; 1142 A.P.R. 290 , held that the insurer was entitled to void the policy for material misrepresentation. Endorsement 10 did not excus......
  • Grafton Connor Group v. Murphy,
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (Canada)
    • 7 Enero 2022
    ...the Defendant, Marsh, in the Nova Scotia Supreme Court decision Grafton Connor Property Inc. (c.o.b. Grafton-Connor Group) v. Murphy, 2015 NSSC 195.  The Grafton Connor Group of companies is solely owned by its President, Gary Hurst.  Marsh insured a building owned by Beaufort Inv......
  • Schellenberg v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company, 2019 BCSC 196
    • Canada
    • British Columbia Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
    • 19 Febrero 2019
    ...the standard of care can be ascertained through the jurisprudence and other evidence, citing Grafton Connor Property Inc. v. Murphy, 2015 NSSC 195, without reference to the appeal decision: 2017 NSCA 54. [114] The facts in Grafton involved a pub that was consumed by fire. The building was o......
1 firm's commentaries
  • Atlantic Canada Case Law Updates - October 2015
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • 6 Noviembre 2015
    ...Insurance coverage refused on the basis of an unintentional misrepresentation on insurance policy Grafton Connor Property Inc. v Murphy, 2015 NSSC 195 In 2007, the North-End Pub in Halifax was destroyed by fire. It was owned by Grafton Connor and insured by Lloyd's of London Underwriters un......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT