The Appellant appealed an Applications Judge’s Decision dismissing their Application for Summary Judgment. The underlying claim involved allegations of professional negligence. The Appellant was the insurance broker for the Respondent.

The Respondent commenced the Action for claims of losses arising from the Appellant’s denial of coverage for fire damage of a vacant rental property. The Respondent alleged that the Appellant failed to inform them of the consequences of not complying with certain inspection requirements. It was agreed that the insurer informed the Respondent of these consequences, but there was disagreement as to whether that information was passed on to the Respondent. The Parties discussed the Respondent’s requirements, but not the consequences for non-compliance.

The Court held that the Appellants failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish that the consequences of non-compliance were communicated to the Respondent. The Appellant’s best evidence was that it was the standard practice of a representative to provide this information, but the representative in question did not have an exact memory of doing so.

Justice Hartigan found that there was insufficient evidence before the Court to resolve the dispute summarily. The Appeal was dismissed.