NORTHBRIDGE INDEMNITY INSURANCE CORPORATION v INTACT INSURANCE COMPANY, 2014 ABQB 345
1.2: Purpose and intention of these rules
3.2: How to start an action
The underlying dispute involved the development of a condominium project (“Centuria Project”). A condominium neighbouring the development site (“Central Park Manor”) sued for damages it sustained from a sink-hole on the lands of the Centuria Project.
The Applicant, Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Corporation (“Northbridge”), was one of the insurers of the Defendant owner of the Centuria Project, Lake Placid Investments Inc. Northbridge filed an Originating Application, pursuant to Rule 3.2(1), seeking contribution from Intact Insurance Company (“Intact”) and Zurich Insurance Company (“Zurich”), the insurers of the other Defendants involved in the Centuria Project. The issue before the Court was whether the Originating Application was the proper way to resolve the coverage dispute.
Sullivan J. held that the Applicant had followed the proper process by way of Originating Application. There was no substantial factual dispute, as argued by Intact and Zurich, pursuant to Rule 3.2(2)(a). There was no dispute that all three insurers insured the Centuria Project; the dispute was between the insurers and the law appeared clear with respect to the legal issues between the parties. Foundational Rule 1.2(1) was also referenced to support the decision that an Originating Application was the most timely and cost-effective resolution of the dispute.View CanLII Details