Focus On

PROPERTY INSURANCE - Household or homeowner’s policies

Tuesday, May 04, 2021 @ 6:34 AM  


Lexis Advance® Quicklaw®
Appeal by the insurer from a decision that found the respondent’s claim for property damage was covered by her home insurance policy with the appellant. Heavy rainfall caused damage to the respondent’s backyard. The respondent’s insurance policy included a watercover extension that insured for loss or damage caused by surface water entering the insured premises. The policy defined premises as the land and building contained within the lot lines and dwelling as the building used and occupied as a personal residence. The appellant denied coverage on the basis that the land and soil were not insured property. The chambers judge found the watercover extension extended coverage to loss or damage to the premises, which included land.

HELD: Appeal allowed. The watercover extension was an insured peril. It provided coverage if loss or damage occurred when a sudden accumulation of rain entered the insured premises. It only provided coverage for loss or damage to property insured under the policy. The land and soil on the premises were not insured property under the policy. The inclusion of the word “premises” in the watercover extension did not modify or change the property that was insured under the policy or extend coverage to uninsured property.

Osborne v. Family Insurance Solutions Inc., [2021] B.C.J. No. 413, British Columbia Court of Appeal, R. Goepel, G. Dickson and G.B. Butler JJ.A., March 5, 2021. Digest No. TLD-May32021004