Canada: Progressive Homes Ltd. v. Lombard General Insurance Co. Of Canada, 2010 SCC 33

This morning the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Progressive Homes Ltd. v. Lombard General Insurance Co., on review from the British Columbia Court of Appeal (the decision may be found online at ). The Supreme Court has overturned the decision of the BC Court of Appeal, and has ruled that Lombard owed a duty to defend to its insured, Progressive Homes Ltd.

This decision is of critical importance for liability insurers in Canada, as it resolves divergent lines of case law which have emerged across the country in respect of coverage for claims alleging construction deficiencies.

The Action arose out of a denial of coverage to Progressive Homes, who was being sued for having acted as the general contractor in the construction of four buildings alleged to have deficient building envelopes. Progressive Homes' CGL insurer denied coverage for the claim, asserting that all of the damages alleged were the normal expected consequences of faulty workmanship, and therefore the alleged damage was not caused by an "accident" or an "occurrence", nor did it constitute "property damage" as required by the policies.

In the decision below, the BC Court of Appeal sided with the insurer, ruling that the claim made against the general contractor did not allege fortuitous "property damage", as defined in Progressive Homes' liability policies, and therefore did not fall within the ambit of the coverage provided. The rulings of the BC courts stood in contrast to those of courts in Ontario (Bridgewood Building Corp. v. Lombard General Insurance Co. of Canada) and Saskatchewan (Westridge Construction Ltd. v. Zurich Insurance Co.) which each employed a broader reading of the coverage grant in similar liability policies.

This morning's decision of the Supreme Court of Canada has overruled the BC Court of Appeal, with Justice Rothstein writing for a unanimous court, as summarized in the Court's headnote:

The duty to defend only requires a possibility of coverage, and that possibility is made out in this case. The pleadings reveal a possibility of "property damage". The pleadings describe water leaking in through windows and walls and allege deterioration of the building components resulting from water ingress and infiltration. The pleadings also describe defective property. The pleadings also sufficiently allege an "accident" for the purpose of deciding whether Lombard owes a duty to defend. There is no reference to intentional conduct by Progressive which would suggest that the property damage was expected or intended. The pleadings allege negligence, which, on its face, suggests that the damage was fortuitous. In addition, it is clear from the pleadings that the damage alleged is the result of "continuous or repeated exposure to conditions", which squarely fits within the definition.

The Issues in Contention

It was alleged in the underlying action against Progressive Homes that it, as the general contractor in the construction of the four buildings in issue, was liable to the building owners because the owners had suffered damages as the result of the failure of, and water leakage through each of the building envelopes. The claim was submitted to Progressive Homes' insurer, which ultimately denied coverage on the basis that the damage alleged pertained only to structural elements which formed part of the general contractor's obligations under its construction contract (and did not allege damage to third party property). The insurer further denied coverage on the basis that damage was the natural result of the alleged faulty workmanship, and therefore did not arise as the result of an "accident" or "occurrence". The denial of coverage was upheld in the BC Supreme Court in a decision found at 2007 BCSC 439.

The trial court's decision was affirmed by a 2-1 majority in the BC Court of Appeal. The analysis of the majority affirmed important aspects of a line of reasoning which was begun in the BC Supreme Court decisions in Swagger Construction Ltd. v. ING Insurance Company of Canada 2005 BCSC 1269, and GCAN Insurance Company v. Concord Pacific Group Inc. et al, 2007 BCSC 241. Each of these decisions concerned coverage for claims alleging defective construction, and in each the determination was made that requisite elements of the insuring agreement were not satisfied. The BC courts consistently found that allegations of construction defect were not the result of an accident or occurrence, as the alleged damage was the natural consequence of faulty workmanship. Further, they found that the damages alleged pertained to the buildings themselves rather than to third party property and, accordingly, they determined that no "property damage" was being alleged. While not wholly adopting all aspects of the analysis found in Swagger and GCAN, the Court of Appeal in Progressive Homes ruled that the requirements of the insuring agreement were not met and no coverage was owed. Justice Ryan, for the majority, ruled that "the expected consequences of poor workmanship can hardly be classified as fortuitous".

Standing in contrast to the BC decisions were decisions from Courts of Appeal of Ontario and Saskatchewan. In both Bridgewood Building Corp. v. Lombard General Insurance Co. of Canada (2006), 266 D.L.R. (4th) 182, 79 O.R. (3d) 494 (C.A.) and Westridge Construction Ltd. v. Zurich Insurance Co. 2005 SKCA 81, an expansive coverage obligation was found to be owed to a general contractor facing allegations of construction defect. In both of those decisions the courts determined that the insuring agreement found in the Broad Form Property Damage Endorsement (variations of which were present in all policies in issue) was intended to provide coverage to a general contractor where the defect in construction was the result of the negligence of a subcontractor.

Thus the battle lines in the Supreme Court of Canada were drawn between the narrow construction given to insuring agreements in British Columbia and the expansive construction given by courts in other provinces.

The Supreme Court of Canada

The Supreme Court's reading of the insuring agreement was expansive, and focused on the specific policy wording in issue rather than on "general principles". In this respect the Supreme Court's analysis differed from the fortuity analysis provided in the British Columbia court.

The Supreme Court's focus on the specific language used mandated a departure from the British Columbia analysis in a number of important respects, particularly with respect to the nature of an "accident" or "occurrence", and with respect to the scope of the term "property damage".

The Court has specifically rejected insurers' contention that "property damage" cannot be found where the only damage alleged is to the building itself. Citing to the lower court rulings in Bridgewood Building Corp. (Riverfield) v. Lombard General Insurance Co. of Canada (2006), 266 D.L.R. (4th) 182 (Ont. C.A.), at paras. 6-7; and Westridge Construction Ltd. v. Zurich Insurance Co., 2005 SKCA 81, 269 Sask. R. 1, at para. 38., Justice Rothstein found:

I cannot agree with Lombard's interpretation of "property damage". The focus of insurance policy interpretation should first and foremost be on the language of the policy at issue. General principles of tort law are no substitute for the language of the policy. I see no limitation to third-party property in the definition of "property damage". Nor is the plain and ordinary meaning of the phrase "property damage" limited to damage to another person's property. Indeed, the Ontario and Saskatchewan Courts of Appeal reached the same conclusion with respect to similar definitions of "property damage" in CGL policies.

In this regard, the Court has rejected the analysis undertaken by the BC courts which referenced the "complex structure theory" set out in the Supreme Court's decision in Winnipeg Condominium Corporation No. 36 v. Bird Construction Co., [1995] 1 S.C.R. 85, which was a tort case. The BC courts had employed the "complex structure theory" to ground their rulings that buildings constituted an indivisible whole for insurance coverage purposes. It is now clear that damage caused to one part of a building by another part of the same building can constitute "property damage" under liability policies:

I would construe the definition of "property damage", according to the plain language of the definition, to include damage to any tangible property. I do not agree with Lombard that the damage must be to third-party property. There is no such restriction in the definition.

The Supreme Court has also rejected the BC Court's fortuity analysis, finding that the concept of fortuity is built into the definition of accident itself:

I cannot agree with Justice Ryan's conclusion that such an interpretation offends the assumption that insurance provides for fortuitous contingent risk. Fortuity is built into the definition of "accident" itself as the insured is required to show that the damage was "neither expected nor intended from the standpoint of the Insured". This definition is consistent with this Court's core understanding of "accident": "an unlooked-for mishap or an untoward event which is not expected or designed" (Gibbens, at para. 22; Martin v. American International Assurance Life Co., 2003 SCC 16, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 158, at para.20; Canadian Indemnity, at pp.315-16; originating in Fenton v. Thorley & Co., [1903] A.C. 443, at p. 448). When an event is unlooked for, unexpected or not intended by the insured, it is fortuitous. This is a requirement of coverage; therefore, it cannot be said that this offends any basic assumption of insurance law.

Accordingly, the analysis as to whether or not faulty workmanship constitutes an "accident" must be determined on a case by base basis:

First, whether defective workmanship is an accident is necessarily a case specific determination. It will depend both on the circumstances of the defective workmanship alleged in the pleadings and the way in which "accident" is defined in the policy. I, therefore, cannot agree with Lombard's view that faulty workmanship is never an accident. This Court's jurisprudence shows that there is no categorical bar to concluding in any particular case that defective workmanship is an accident. In Canadian Indemnity Co. v. Walkem Machinery & Equipment Ltd., [1976] 1 S.C.R. 309, at pp. 315- 17, the Court found that the negligent repair of a crane constituted an accident. Therefore, I see no impediment to concluding the same in the present case, unless of course it is not supported by the specific language of the policy.

On the basis of the foregoing, the Court determined that the requirements of the insuring agreement were met, and turned its attention to the series of "work performed" exclusions found in the policies. The first exclusion, found in the Broad Form Extension, read:

With respect to the completed operations hazard to property damage to work performed by the Named Insured arising out of the work or any portion thereof, or out of materials, parts or equipment furnished in connection therewith. [Emphasis added by the Court.]

The Court read the exclusion very narrowly to exclude only "damage caused by Progressive to its own work". The claim made against Progressive Homes was found to allege considerable damage to elements of the building which potentially fell outside the scope of Progressive Homes "own work". Accordingly, the exclusion did not apply to negate coverage.

Turning its attention to the second exclusion, which excluded damage to "that particular part of your work arising out of it or any part of it and included in the 'products - completed operations hazard'.", the Court similarly found that this exclusion did not eliminate the possibility of coverage:

Again, I find there is a possibility of coverage under the second version of the policy. It will have to be determined at trial which "particular parts" of the work caused the damage. Repairs to those defective parts will be excluded from coverage under this version, regardless of whether they were the result of Progressive's own work or the work of subcontractors. If, as Lombard alleges, the buildings are wholly defective, then the exclusion will apply and Lombard will not have to indemnify Progressive. However, the pleadings allege that there was resulting damage: deterioration of the building components resulting from water ingress and infiltration. This is sufficient to trigger the duty to defend under the second version of the policy.

The last form of exclusion contained what has been called the "subcontractor exception", which provided: "This exclusion does not apply if the damaged work or the work out of which the damage arises was performed on your behalf by a subcontractor". As with the first two exclusions, the Court found that the third exclusion did not eliminate the possibility of coverage:

The third version of the "work performed" exclusion is simply a combination of the first and second versions. The "exclusion" portion of this exclusion clause is identical to the second version of the policy, thus it only excludes coverage for defective property. Coverage would remain for resulting damage. This version of the policy also expressly incorporates the "subcontractor exception", which was previously implicit in the Broad Form Extension Endorsement. The subcontractor exception expands coverage again. It would allow for coverage of defective work where it is work completed by a subcontractor.

The Court clarified that its ruling pertained only to the duty to defend, and that the determination of what damage was actually covered by the insuring agreement, and excluded by the exclusions would have to wait until the evidence was established at trial. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the allegations in the underlying claim triggered Lombard's duty to defend under each of its policies.

This morning's Supreme Court decision will require considerably more consideration and analysis than we have provided here. We will review the decision in more depth, and provide more considered analysis in the coming weeks.

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.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.