Tien Lung Taekwon-Do Club et al. v. Lloyd's Underwriters,

• Judge: Martin,Paperny,Ross
• Neutral Citation: 2015 ABCA 46
• Citation: (2015), 599 A.R. 39,2015 ABCA 46,599 AR 39,(2015), 599 AR 39,599 A.R. 39
• Date: 08 January 2015
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)

Tien Lung Taekwon-Do Club v. Lloyd's Underwriters (2015), 599 A.R. 39; 643 W.A.C. 39 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] A.R. TBEd. FE.009

Tien Lung Taekwon-Do Club, Authentic South Side Taekwon-Do Club and Nicholas Pagnotta (respondents/applicants) v. Lloyd's Underwriters (carrying on business under the name and style of Sutton Sportscover)

(appellant/respondent)

(1403-0105-AC; 2015 ABCA 46)

Indexed As: Tien Lung Taekwon-Do Club et al. v. Lloyd's Underwriters

Alberta Court of Appeal

Paperny and Martin, JJ.A., and Ross, J.(ad hoc)

February 3, 2015.

Summary:

A plaintiff claimed that he was injured while sparring with a Taekwon-Do instructor when testing for his black belt. The plaintiff commenced an action against two martial arts clubs and the instructor. The clubs were insured under a "Canadian Sports General Liability Insurance Policy" from Lloyd's Underwriters (carrying on business as Sutton Sportscover) and claimed that Lloyd's was required to defend them against the plaintiff's law suit. However Lloyd's denied coverage and refused to defend the action. The martial arts clubs and the instructor applied for a declaration that Lloyd's was obliged to defend.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported [2014] A.R. Uned. 199, allowed the application, ruling that Lloyd's was obliged to defend in the plaintiff's action. Lloyd's appealed.

The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Insurance - Topic 725

Insurers - Duties - Duty to defend - [See Insurance - Topic 1861 ].

Insurance - Topic 1861

The insurance contract - Interpretation of contract - Contra proferentem rule - Ambiguity construed against insurer - A plaintiff claimed that he was injured while sparring with a Taekwon-Do instructor when testing for his black belt - The plaintiff sued the instructor and two martial arts clubs - The clubs were insured under a "Canadian Sports General Liability Insurance Policy" from Lloyd's Underwriters - However Lloyd's denied coverage and refused to defend the plaintiff's action based on Exclusion N of the policy - The martial arts clubs and the instructor applied for a declaration that Lloyd's was obliged to defend - The applications judge construed the policy contra proferentum against Lloyd's ruling that Lloyd's was obliged to defend - Lloyd's appealed - The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - The applications judge correctly stated and applied the applicable legal principles and reached the correct interpretation of the policy.

Cases Noticed:

Progressive Homes Ltd. v. Lombard General Insurance Co. of Canada, [2010] 2 S.C.R. 245; 406 N.R. 182; 293 B.C.A.C. 1; 496 W.A.C. 1; 2010 SCC 33, refd to. [para. 12].

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. 17].

Housen v. Nikolaisen et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235; 286 N.R. 1; 219 Sask.R. 1; 272 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 33, refd to. [para. 17].

Vallieres et al. v. Vozniak (2014), 580 A.R. 326; 620 W.A.C. 326; 2014 ABCA 290, refd to. [para. 18].

Giacomelli v. Scottsdale Insurance Co. (2009), 345 Mont. 15, refd to. [para. 19].

United States Fire Insurance Co. v. Athletic Association (1991), 71 Ohio App 3d 760, refd to. [para. 19].

ING Insurance Co. of Canada v. Mitsious (2007), 84 O.R.(3d) 715, refd to. [para. 21].

Tedford v. TD Insurance Meloche Monnex (2012), 292 O.A.C. 374; 2012 ONCA 429, refd to. [para. 21].

Counsel:

K.M. Kenny, for the respondents/applicants;

D.N. Delagran, for the appellant/respondent.

This appeal was heard on January 8, 2015, before Paperny and Martin, JJ.A., and Ross, J.(ad hoc), of the Alberta Court of Appeal. The following memorandum of judgment was delivered by the court on February 3, 2015.