Carter v. Intact Insurance CompanyPosted April 20, 2016
2016 ONCA 917 (CanLII); Lerners acted for the defendant insurer in respect of a claim for replacement costs following a fire that significantly damaged a building owned by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs decided to demolish the building and build a condominium rather than return the building to its former state. The insurer paid the plaintiffs the actual cash value of the damaged building but refused to pay replacement costs, as the new building was not “of like kind and quality” as required by the policy wording. The plaintiffs sued and then brought a Rule 21 motion to determine the coverage issue. Their motion was dismissed. The Court of Appeal also dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge was correct in his interpretation of the insurance policy. As the proposed new building was not “of like kind and quality”, there was no entitlement to replacement cost coverage.