The Plaintiff (Respondent), 401683 Alberta Ltd., alleges that the Defendant (Appellant) 6341004 Manitoba Ltd. (Schellenberg Insurance), (its insurance broker) was professionally negligent in advising on an insurance policy related to a vacant rental property.
The Plaintiff's insurance claim was denied after a fire because the required 72-hour property inspections were not completed as per the Vacancy Permit conditions.
The Defendant sought summary judgment under Rule 7.3 of the Alberta Rules of Court, arguing there was no genuine issue requiring trial.
Key Legal Issues
Did the Defendant adequately inform the Plaintiff of the risk of insurance cancellation if inspections were not done?
Was there a failure to advise on sufficient fire loss and co-insurance coverage?
Court’s Findings
No dispute that the Plaintiff was aware of the inspection requirement but unclear whether they were explicitly informed of the full consequences of non-compliance.
Neither party had a specific memory of whether this was discussed.
The Defendant claimed it was standard practice to inform clients, but the court found no clear evidence confirming this happened.
The court was not convinced that summary judgment was appropriate, as credibility issues required trial determination.
Since the first issue remained triable, the court did not consider the second issue regarding insurance coverage sufficiency.
Conclusion
The appeal was dismissed, meaning the case will proceed to trial.
Costs will be determined if parties cannot agree?.
No monetary award, damages, or costs were granted in this decision.
