Client Update – Protecting the innocent in property insurance: recent amendments to Nova Scotia’s Insurance Act limit “criminal or intentional act” exclusion clauses
Recent amendments to the Nova Scotia Insurance Act are designed “to protect the financial interests of an innocent person when the person’s property is damaged by another person with whom that person shares an insurance policy.”1 The consequences of domestic violence provide the backdrop for these amendments, which came into force on April 18, 2018. The amendments apply to property insurance policies and will primarily impact homeowners’ policies.
As a result of the amendments, policies can no longer exclude coverage for an innocent insured who experiences property loss or damage as a result of their co-insured’s criminal or intentional wrongdoing.
When she announced these amendments to the Insurance Act, Finance Minister Karen Casey noted that they would especially assist women, who are “disproportionately” affected by domestic violence and may suffer property loss or damage at their home as a result.
Nova Scotia is one of several Canadian provinces — including New Brunswick — that have made similar amendments to their insurance legislation.2
Going forward, Nova Scotia property policies will be interpreted in accordance with the new section 13A of the Insurance Act, regardless of how the policy’s exclusion clause governing criminal and intentional acts is worded.
The new section 13A of the Insurance Act provides:
13A (1) Where a contract contains a term or condition excluding coverage for loss or damage to property caused by a criminal or intentional act or omission of an insured or any other person, the exclusion applies only to the claim of a person
(a) whose act or omission caused the loss or damage;
(b) who abetted or colluded in the act or omission;
(c) who
(i) consented to the act or omission, and
(ii) knew or ought to have known that the act or omission would cause the loss or damage; or
(d) who is not a natural person.
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) allows a person whose property is insured under the contract to recover more than the person’s proportionate interest in the lost or damaged property.
(3) A person whose coverage would be excluded but for subsection (1) shall
(a) co-operate with the insurer in respect of the investigation of the loss, including submitting to an examination under oath if requested by the insurer;
(b) in addition to producing any documents required by the contract, produce for examination, at a reasonable place and time specified by the insurer, all documents in the person’s possession or control that relate to the loss; and
(c) comply with any other requirement prescribed by the regulations.
NOTE: This update provides general information only and is not intended to offer legal advice. If you have specific questions about how the amendments might affect you, please contact the head of our firm-wide Insurance Defence Practice Group, Shelley Wood; Tyana Caplan; or any of Stewart McKelvey’s insurance lawyers in Nova Scotia.
1See the Explanatory Note to Bill 106, as well as “Amendments to the Insurance Act Protect Nova Scotians” (March 29, 2018).
2Donalee Moulton, “New Brunswick amends Insurance Act to better protect victims of domestic violence” in The Lawyer’s Daily (December 27, 2017).
3Insurance Act, RSNS 1989, c 231, as amended by SNS 2018, c 12 (Bill 106). The amendments have not yet been consolidated into the online version of the Insurance Act.
Archive
By Jennifer Taylor Why is this case a big deal? It started with two salmon. Now, after several years of litigation, the Nova Scotia Provincial Court in R v Martin, 2016 NSPC 14 has stayed proceedings against…
Read MoreTHE EDITORS’ CORNER Michelle Black and Sean Kelly One day, the line between mental and physical disabilities may not be so pronounced, but, for now, distinctions are still drawn between Employee A with, for example, diabetes and…
Read MoreBy Lisa Gallivan Employees can be your biggest asset, if you hire the right people. This can often be one of the biggest decisions that you make as a business owner or employer. The “right” employee…
Read MoreBy Burtley Francis and Kathleen Leighton Order Up: Apple, P.I. Recently, the public safety versus personal privacy debate has been brought to main headlines. Apple is facing a court order (available here) requiring the company to assist the FBI in the investigation of…
Read MoreIn preparing for the 2016 proxy season, you should be aware of some regulatory changes and institutional investor guidance that may impact disclosure to and interactions with your shareholders. This update highlights what is new…
Read MoreBy Burtley Francis and Michael MacIsaac You remember Left Shark… The Super Bowl is a lot of things to a lot of people and is arguably the most anticipated event of the year that is not a holiday…
Read MoreBy Jennifer Taylor Summary The Canada Industrial Relations Board recently held that it had no jurisdiction as a federal board to certify a bargaining unit comprised of fisheries employees of the Waycobah First Nation. The decision…
Read MoreBy Peter McLellan, QC In the 1970s the issue for employers was long hair and sideburns. In the 1980’s it was earrings for men. Today the employer’s concerns are with tattoos and facial piercings. What are…
Read MoreBy Jennifer Taylor Introduction It sounds simple: Two disputing parties, hoping to resolve their disagreement without drawn-out court proceedings, will mutually agree to a settlement on clear terms; release each other from all claims; and move…
Read More2015 ends with changes in workplace laws that our region’s employers will want to be aware of moving into 2016. Some legislation has been proclaimed and is in force, some has passed and will be…
Read More