ARTICLE
21 August 2017

Brokers Breathe A Sigh Of Relief

CC
Clyde & Co

Contributor

Clyde & Co  logo
Clyde & Co is a leading, sector-focused global law firm with 415 partners, 2200 legal professionals and 3800 staff in over 50 offices and associated offices on six continents. The firm specialises in the sectors that move, build and power our connected world and the insurance that underpins it, namely: transport, infrastructure, energy, trade & commodities and insurance. With a strong focus on developed and emerging markets, the firm is one of the fastest growing law firms in the world with ambitious plans for further growth.
The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal has just limited the scope of the standard of care applicable to insurance brokers
Canada Insurance
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal has just limited the scope of the standard of care applicable to insurance brokers

The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal recently released its decision in Marsh Canada Ltd. v. Grafton Connor Property Inc, partially reversing the lower court's decision, which had been widely seen as expanding the scope of the standard of care applicable to insurance brokers.

The insured's commercial property burned down in 2007. The insurer denied coverage on the basis that the insured had misrepresented material features of the building in its application for insurance. The insured claimed against its insurer and its broker, Marsh Canada Ltd.

A welcome decision for the Canadian brokerage community

The Court agreed that the insurer was entitled to void the policy for misrepresentation, but -- in an unpleasant surprise for brokers -- found Marsh Canada Ltd. liable for 50% of the insured's loss, holding that in complex insurance transactions, the standard of care requires brokers to make inquiries as to whether or not their clients have "the necessary skill to provide accurate information" on insurance applications (Ibid at para 318). It should be recalled that the information at issue was whether the building was of masonry construction, and whether it contained sprinklers.

The Court of Appeal reversed the decision on that point of law, holding that the imposition on an agent to verify information which is in the knowledge of the insured was a "...significant departure from the law as it presently exists" (Ibid at para 116-117) and that a broker "should be entitled to rely upon the applicant's ability to represent ... basic information correctly without further investigation" (Ibid at para 123).

While this is a welcome decision for the Canadian brokerage community, it should be remembered that the risk at issue was a commercial property risk. As the degree of sophistication of a particular risk grows, so too will the standard of care.

The author wishes to thank Laura Sullivan, Articling Student, for her contribution.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More