07 Mar Is the “intelligent insurance agent” intelligent enough to avoid liability?
Sabina Zefferino was eligible by her employment to purchase automobile insurance from Meloche Monnex Insurance Company, which offered its services by telephone through employees in a call centre rather than on a face-to-face basis with customers. Ms. Zefferino purchased automobile insurance for herself and her husband in 2003. As the court would later find, the choice by the plaintiff and his spouse to deal with the defendant was made based on its very competitive pricing.
Meloche Monnex records included notes of telephone contacts by both Ms. and Mr. Zefferino relating to the new policy in 2003 and a vehicle change and a renewal in 2004. Optional benefits were refused in each of two telephone conversations between the defendant’s representatives and Ms. Zefferino on September 2, 2003 and again on February 4, 2004.
Mr. Zefferino was injured in a May 2005 car accident that rendered him unable to return to work. Mr. Zefferino’s income at the time of the accident would have qualified him for income replacement benefits of $1000 per week. But the insurance agent had not offered Ms. Zefferino the opportunity to purchase optional income replacement benefits. Therefore, Mr. Zefferino’s entitlement to income replacement benefits was limited to the statutory minimum income replacement benefit of $400 per week.
Mr. Zefferino sued the firm that had acted as his insurance agent. At trial, it was not disputed that the defendant’s representatives had not engaged Mr. or Ms. Zefferino in detailed discussions of income replacement benefits or the potential for securing optional benefit coverage. Indeed, the defendant’s representatives had no discussion with Mr. or Ms. Zefferino as to their respective incomes and gave them no examples of the levels of income that would support the optional benefit coverage. The insurance agents did not quote the additional cost of optional benefits at any level.
The court had no difficulty finding that the defendant’s representatives were negligent.
The Insurance Act and SABS establish minimum basic levels of coverage that apply to each policy, subject to the purchase of optional higher coverage levels. Although the pricing of the mandatory policy is left with the insurers, it is reasonable to assume that the setting of minimum statutory provisions was arrived at by balancing the need for an adequate universal standard of coverage against cost. To make the mandatory offer of optional coverages meaningful, consumers must be given an understandable alternative which would allow them to measure the need for more coverage against risk and cost. Otherwise, there would be no purpose behind that mandatory language… there is a consumer protection purpose behind the need to offer the optional coverages…
The defendant argued that the conduct of its representatives in offering the optional benefits without detailed inquiry into the customer’s circumstances and without providing a quote as to additional costs that might be involved was consistent with the industry-standard…. customary behaviour is relevant to the issue and is some evidence of compliance with the standard of care but is not conclusive…
I consider that the failure to properly offer the optional benefit coverage, effectively negating any requirement to ensure that customers can make an informed decision on the subject, is a breach of the standard of care applicable to the defendant in the circumstances. I am not persuaded that the evidence of common practice in the industry offered by the defendant through its own representatives is sufficiently persuasive to establish a standard of care under which the offer of optional benefits could be made in a less meaningful way.
Nevertheless, Mr. Zefferino lost when Meloche Monnex moved for summary judgment. His evidence that he would have purchased optional benefit coverage if he had understood the offer made by the defendant’s representatives was rejected. The court noted that Mr. and Ms. Zefferino had purchased insurance from four other insurance companies during the ten years before beginning their relationship with the defendant insurance agency. There was no evidence that anything other than basic coverage was purchased by them on any of those prior occasions. The court inferred that the choice of securing insurance through the defendant was based on price. The court referred to evidence of notes made by the defendant’s representatives in which it was recorded that Ms. Zefferino had declined optional coverage on the basis that there was no need. The court held:
Even assuming as I have done that the standard of care required a more fulsome explanation of the optional coverage by the defendant, there is no hint of any interest on the part of the plaintiff and his spouse in coverage greater than the statutory minimum in any area…
I consider that the plaintiff’s evidence that he would have secured additional income replacement benefit coverage had he understood what was being offered not to be credible. Not only is it clearly self-serving, but it is not consistent with the plaintiff’s and his spouse’s previous actions. No evidence was provided by Ms. Zefferino, even though it may well have been relevant. In my view, the plaintiff (or his spouse) chose to purchase the least expensive form of insurance available. He cannot now change that bargain. As such, he fails in the third issue necessary to establish a successful claim in negligence in that he has not shown on a balance of probabilities the necessary causal connection between the defendant’s breach of duty and his loss.
Zefferino v. Meloche Monnex Insurance Co. is instructive as to the evidence that needs to be adduced in every case where the deep pockets of the insurance agent are pursued by an under-insured plaintiff. However, the cases described in this paper suggest that the duty on an insurance broker or agent is such that liability is likely to follow whenever a client is under-insured.
The Zefferinos had a history of declining optional coverage. They were not like Mr. Fine, who the court described in the leading Fine’s Flowers case in this way: “Mr. Fine believed in insurance”.
Without evidence of consumer behaviour such as was demonstrated by Mr. and Ms. Zefferino, or evidence of non-reliance on the insurance agent such as in the Kalkinis case hereinafter described, it will usually be open to the court to infer that the client would have purchased whatever coverage ought to have been recommended by an insurance agent acting as the “intelligent insurance agent” described in the caselaw.
This insurance agent is intelligent in ways that go beyond having a superior intellect. This agent has excellent foresight. She excels at customer service. The intelligent insurance agent meets her “stringent” legal duty to provide not only information concerning available insurance coverage, but also such advice as the client needs to assess risk and tailor the customer’s insurance policies to fit the customer’s particular needs.
The “intelligent insurance agent” determines risk when advising the client what the client needs. This agent knows what insurance is available. This agent anticipates circumstances in which there might be an issue between the client and the insurer on whether or not there is coverage. The intelligent insurance agent then arranges for the coverage that will cover the client in circumstances that might be excluded under another policy or makes certain that the client is aware of the exclusion and is able to seek insurance protection from another source not available to the insurance agent.
The intelligent insurance agent also provides services that go beyond giving advice on insurance needs and then brokering or placing insurance on behalf of the client. The intelligent insurance agent takes an active interest and involvement in loss prevention and functions as a “claims supervisory service” to assist the client in the satisfactory settlement of the claim.
It is a difficult standard to meet and/or prove was met. Accordingly, insurance agents with under-insured clients are invariably forced to rely on defences based on causation (as in the Zefferino and Godina cases to which we will refer), reliance (as in Kalkinis) and contributory negligence (as in the Firestone Canada case referred to in that section of this paper).
Duty of Care
Fletcher et al v. Manitoba Public Insurance Co. remains the leading case on the duty of care owed by insurance brokers. In that case, the insurer, a corporation owned by the province of Manitoba and responsible for the province’s mandatory automobile insurance scheme, did not advise the insured of underinsured motorist coverage after the insured requested the maximum available coverage. The insured brought an action against the insurer and was successful on the basis that the insurer’s employees were negligent in failing to advise the insured of the availability of underinsured motorist coverage. In coming to this finding the Supreme Court confirmed that brokers owe their clients a duty of care if:
- Clients rely on the information provided by the broker;
- This reliance is reasonable; and
- The broker knew or ought to have known that the client would rely on the information.
Standard of Care
The Ontario Court of Appeal set out the standard of care for insurance agents and brokers in the much-cited case Fine’s Flowers Ltd. v. General Accident Assuance Company of Canada. In that case the insured operated a greenhouse and requested full coverage from the insurance agent. The agent failed to insure the water pumps. The water pumps malfunctioned as a result of wear and tear and the insured lost the greenhouse crops. The Court of Appeal upheld the insurance agent’s liability in contract and negligence. The Court stated:
In many instances, an insurance agent will be asked to obtain a specific type of coverage and his duty in those circumstances will be to use a reasonable degree of skill and care in doing so or, if he is unable to do so, “to inform the principal promptly in order to prevent him from suffering loss through relying upon the successful completion of the transaction by the agent”: Ivamy, General Principles of Insurance Law (2nd ed. 1970), p. 464.
But there are other cases, and in my view this is one of them, in which the client gives no such specific instructions but rather relies upon his agent to see that he is protected, and if the agent agrees to do business with him on those terms, then he cannot after wards, when an uninsured loss arises, shrug off the responsibility he has assumed. If this requires him to inform himself about his client’s business in order to assess the foreseeable risks and insure his client against them, then this he must do. It goes without saying that an agent who does not have the requisite skills to understand the nature of his client’s business and assess the risks that should not be insured against should not be offering this kind of service.
The Court of Appeal adopted the intelligent insurance agent standard set out in Lahey v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co. “The intelligent insurance agent inspects the risks when he insures them, knows what his insurer is providing, discovers the areas that may give rise to dispute and either arranges for the coverage or makes certain the purchaser is aware of the exclusion.”
As noted, in Zefferino v. Meloche Monnex Insurance the Ontario Superior Court of Justice found that brokers can be liable if they do not adequately describe available optional coverage to a client. As discussed, Mr. Zefferino was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received the statutory minimum income replacement benefit as a result of his loss. He alleged that the brokers failed to offer optional income replacement benefit coverage as required under the Insurance Act and that if the optional coverage had been offered, he would have purchased it. The broker’s records indicated that the optional benefits were refused in each telephone conversation the broker had with Ms. Zefferino, however the brokers did not provide detailed advice on the income replacement benefits or the potential of securing optional benefit coverage. There was no discussion of the plaintiff’s income nor were there examples given of the levels of income that would support the optional benefit coverage. The broker argued that its practice was in accordance with industry standards. The Court rejected this argument and found that even if that was common practice, it did not correspond to the standard of care.
Meeting the Standard of Care
The standard is high and emphasizes reasonableness rather than that of a reasonable insurance agent. The case law indicates that the likelihood of establishing a breach of the standard is high if an insured requests specific coverage and the broker does not obtain that coverage and advise the insured of that fact. If the insured does not request specific coverage, then the broker must provide full coverage and meet the standard of the “intelligent insurance agent”.
Advise of Gaps in Coverage
Brokers must advise of gaps in coverage. In Godina v. Tripemco Burlington Insurance Group, the client was covered for the standard amount of income replacement benefit through his motor vehicle insurance policy. The client did not buy the optional coverage that would have increased his entitlement although he was eligible for it. The client was seriously injured in a motor vehicle accident and the client claimed that he was not properly advised about optional coverage and that if he had been so advised, he would have purchased this coverage. The client brought an action against the insurance broker for negligence, seeking additional amounts that he would have been entitled to under the optional coverage.
The client alleged that the defendant breached the standard of care by not requesting information about the client’s financial circumstances and income so as to make a proper assessment of the client’s needs. The broker instead sent a form letter for renewal to the client stating that the document was prepared based on previously established coverage and limits along with two recommendations: to increase the client’s liability limit to $2 million and to increase his accident benefits coverage to suit his needs.
The client did not call expert evidence but relied on the statutory requirement in the SABS that “every insurer shall offer the following optional benefits… optional income replacement benefit”. The broker called an expert who testified that the broker met the standard of care by advising the plaintiff of the existence of optional benefits, explaining what the optional benefits were and asking whether the minimum coverage would be sufficient in the event the client was unable to work. The expert testified that once the client declined coverage after a broker explained the coverage and inquired about whether the minimum amount would be adequate in the event of an accident or subsequent disability, there is no continuing obligation to make further recommendations or to quote the additional premium. The Court accepted the expert’s testimony and found that the broker did not breach the standard of care.
In Fairbairn v. Rowlands Insurance the insured bought a house to restore and had a fire and extended coverage rented dwelling policy on it. There was a fire in the house and the insured brought an action in negligence against the insurance agency. The insured stated that they thought they had guaranteed replacement coverage in place as they had on all of their previous residences. The Court found that the agent did not breach the standard of care because the insured was aware that guaranteed replacement coverage was unavailable for that residence and the policies clearly set out the nature and limits of coverage. The Court found that where a client is aware of the limitations of the coverage they have in place, the agent will not be liable for gaps in coverage.
In Bronfman v. BFL Canada Risk and Insurance Services the insured discovered there was a break-in at their residence and a 310 lbs safe was stolen with $1 million in jewelry and $50,000 in cash. The insurance policy only had a $10,000 limit for jewelry and $1,500 cash limit. The insured alleged that the defendant breached its contract and was negligent. The Court disagreed with the broker’s argument that the form letters that accompanied the policy renewal each year discharged the broker’s duty. On the facts of that case, the broker should have recognized that the jewelry limit was inadequate and raised the issue with the insured.
In Dustbane Products Ltd. v. Gifford Associates Insurance an insured was advised by its broker that the broker had arranged for the excess insurer to provide umbrella insurance coverage for the insured’s vehicles, however, the broker failed to advise that there was a gap in excess coverage with respect to the insured’s long-term leased vehicles. Following an accident involving one of the insured’s long-term leased vehicles, the insured sought coverage from the excess insurer, but was denied. The insured successfully brought an action in negligence against the broker for the failure to properly advise the insured with respect to the umbrella coverage obtained for the vehicles. The Court found that the broker was required to ensure that where there was a gap in the insurance, the insured was advised of the gap and all reasonable efforts were taken to ensure that the insured was properly protected.
Similarly, in National Crane Services Inc. v. AON Reed Stenhouse the broker was in breach of the standard because it failed to advise on the hole or gap in the policy. The insured operated a crane rental business and accepted a contract to move a $200,000 printing press. The insured only had a comprehensive commercial insurance policy which covered up to $50,000 for items moved by the crane. The insured requested an increase in the limit to $250,000. Neither the insured nor the broker reviewed the exclusions contained in the rider. The insured then proceeded with the contract to move the printing press and it was dropped. The customer’s insurer brought a subrogated claim against the insured for the cost of a new press as well as business interruption loss. In a negotiated settlement, the insurer paid the coverage limit of $250,000 and the insured paid an additional $35,000. Only after the claim was settled did the broker read the exclusions contained in the rider. The rider excluded claims for business interruption loss. The broker then learned that no insurer covered business interruption loss of a customer of a crane owner. The insured brought a claim against its broker alleging breach of fiduciary duty and negligence. The broker submitted that a claim for business interruption loss was not a foreseeable risk. The Court disagreed and found the broker had breached its fiduciary duty owed to the insured. The broker undertook to advise its clients on insurance coverage based on his knowledge of its clients’ needs. The Court found that the broker should have read the exclusions of the rider and advised the insured accordingly. The Court said brokers are more knowledgeable about insurance matters including available coverage, insurable interests and the nature of the client’s business and its insurance needs. Since the broker failed to advise of the gap in coverage, failed to read the exclusions regarding business interruption loss and failed to recognize business interruption loss as a foreseeable risk, the court found the broker had breached its fiduciary duty to the insured and was negligent.
Make Appropriate Inquiries of Client’s Insurance Needs
In order to determine whether there are gaps in coverage, the broker must have an understanding of the client`s insurance needs. As stated in Fine`s Flowers, the broker must inform himself of the insured`s insurance requirements and assess the risks.
In Tactics Advertising Inc. v. Hartford Insurance Co. of Canada the insurance brokers were held liable for failing to make the appropriate inquiries of their client as to the nature of its business and accompanying risks when the clients relied on them to provide appropriate coverage. In that case the insured operated a business which consisted of consulting and advertising for new home sales. The insured hired an independent contractor to update the company`s computer system and equipment to train staff. The independent contractor destroyed the entire computer system. The acts of the independent contractor were excluded under the company`s insurance policy. The company brought an action against the brokers for damages arising from negligence in arranging insurance coverage. The brokers had renewed insurance coverage of the company without discussing changes and exclusions in the policy with representatives of the company. The brokers had not been aware of the independent contractor working at the company and had not questioned the company in this regard. The company relied on the brokers to advise them of reasonable risks the company was facing. The Court found the brokers failed to make appropriate inquiries required to identify such risks and failed to advise the company accordingly. The brokers made no real attempt to determine the company`s needs, failed to explain coverages or give alternate advice where coverages were not available. The insurance to cover the independent contract should have been identified by the brokers as a potential risk.
Defences Available to Brokers
If a broker can demonstrate that the insured did not rely on the broker’s advice, the insured will not be successful in a negligence action against the broker. In Kalkinis (Litigation Guardian of) v. Allstate Insurance Co. of Canada the insurance agent recommended that the insured increase coverage under the motor vehicle policy from $500,000 to $1,000,000. The insured agreed to increase but later changed his mind. The insured’s son-in-law contacted the agent and cancelled the increased coverage. The insured was involved in an accident and judgment was issued against him for $1,000,000. The insured brought an action against the insurer for the difference between the coverage and the damage award. The trial judge found the agent negligent because the agent did not explain why the minimum coverage was inadequate.
The insurer appealed and was successful. The insured had not relied on the agent for insurance advice. He had relied on his son-in-law, who persistently recommended that the emphasis should be on the cost of the premium and not the quality of coverage.
Where a client does not rely on the expertise of the agent in determining coverage, the agent will not be liable for gaps in coverage.
The plaintiff has to prove on the balance of probabilities that the plaintiff suffered damages as a result of the insurance agent’s breach. There must be a causal link between the breach and the damages experienced. However, once the plaintiff proves a breach of the agent’s duty of care to ensure that there was full coverage, the onus with respect to causation shifts to the defendant insurance agent. It is for the defendant to establish that coverage for the loss that happened was not available and could not have been obtained through other sources. Without such evidence, it is open to the court to infer, as the court did in Dustbane Products Ltd. v. Gifford Associates Insurance, supra note 19, at paras. 191-195 that:
… it is inconceivable – in my view, that Dustbane would not have taken alternative steps to ensure that it was properly protected against the very situation that it now finds itself in. At the very least one can surmise that someone with Merkley’s education and business background, if he had been advised of the gap in insurance coverage, would have protected Dustbane from the potential liability it now faces…. I am not satisfied on the evidence before me that the defendants have met the evidentiary standard required to establish that even with a breach of the duty of care, that such breach did not cause the losses that Dustbane might now face given the gap in insurance coverage.
The plaintiff is obliged to establish that but for the broker’s breach, the additional coverage would have been purchased. As noted, this can be difficult for claimants to prove if their past practice was to purchase minimal coverage. In Godina, despite finding that the broker did not breach the standard of care, the Court went on to analyze whether the broker caused the insured’s loss. The Court found that even if the broker breached the standard of care, the evidence did not support a finding that the insured would have purchased the optional benefit coverage on the basis that: the plaintiff only ever wanted the minimum coverage legally required; he always opted for the lower liability limit; collision coverage was always declined; the insured always contacted the broker promptly when changes occurred that could reduce his premium; the insured drove without insurance for a period until he came into contact with police while operating the vehicle; and the insured did not respond to the letter recommending an increase to the accidents benefit coverage to “suit his individual needs”.
As noted, in Zefferino the Court found that there was a breach of the standard of care but ruled that the broker was not liable because there was no evidence that the client would have purchased more coverage than the statutory minimum. It was significant, as also noted, that the Zefferinos had never purchased more than basic, and so least expensive, coverage in the ten years before they began dealing with the defendant Meloche Monnex.
Broker as Agent of Insurer
It is possible for brokers to act as agents of the insurer. In those circumstances, the agent-principal relationship governs liability. In Miller v. Guardian Insurance Co. of Canada the plaintiff obtained an insurance policy for his motorcycle that did not include underinsured motorist coverage. The plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sued the insurer and the agent for the lack of coverage. The agent was found liable in negligence for failing to advise the plaintiff of the need for underinsured motorist coverage and the insurer was found liable as principal of the agent. The insurer appealed and the plaintiff cross-appealed the finding of contributory negligence. The appeal was dismissed and the cross-appeal was allowed.
In finding that the broker was an agent of the insurer, the Court found that the broker was more than a typical broker or soliciting agent, neither of which have the capacity to bind the company. The broker was described by the Court as a recording agent – an independent company which, despite being an entity separate and distinguishable from the insurer, having the power to bind the company. The broker was authorized to collect premiums on behalf of the company, receive and transmit applications for insurance to the company and provide the usual and customary services of an insurance agent with respect to all policies placed with the company. All of this supported a finding that the broker was an agent of the insurer.
Consequently, the broker’s initial negligence in not placing underinsured motorist coverage, despite the insured’s request for full coverage and the broker’s subsequent negligence in not fully acquainting the insured with the uninsured motorist endorsement or the family protection endorsement which replaced it became the insurer’s own negligence, for the law maintains that qui facit per alium facit per se. Simply put, the principal insurer is liable personally for the negligence of its agent, the broker.
If the insurer is found liable for its agent then the issue may arise of whether the insurer can claim indemnity from the agent. To determine whether the insurer can claim indemnity from the agent, the court must determine what position the principal would have been in if the agent had not been negligent. In Miller, it was not the insurer’s practice to refuse underinsured motorist coverage therefore the insurer was liable to compensate the insured for the coverage the insured would have received. The broker would have charged and submitted to the insurer an extra premium in order to bind the coverage, therefore the broker was ordered to indemnify the insurer for the amount it would have cost to place the coverage.
A different result occurred in Ostenda v. Bahena Miranda when the broker placed insurance with several insurers and had no ability to issue policies on behalf of the insurer. The client was injured in a motor vehicle accident. The client`s insurance coverage did not contain an endorsement that provided uninsured or underinsured coverage. The client brought an action against the insurance company and the broker for damages for their failure to advise about the need for and to obtain underinsurance coverage. The defendant insurance company brought a motion for summary judgment. In granting the motion, the Court found that the insurance company had no duty of care to the client. The insurer had to develop some level of familiarity with the client, however its purpose in doing so should not be confused with responsibility on the broker to give proper coverage advice to the client. This case was distinguishable from Fletcher where the insurer was held liable because in that situation there was no intermediary, whereas here the broker acted as the intermediary. The Court ruled:
To extend the principle in Fine`s Flowers to this case would require the court to accept that the insurer was performing the same function as the broker and accordingly had the same duties. The extension of that principle, however, would require the court to accept that the customer looked to the insurer and placed reliance upon it in the same fashion as the customer in Fine`s Flowers did in its broker and further that the insurer knowingly and willingly undertook the responsibilities of a broker in the same fashion. The evidence failed to establish that premise.
The evidence did not support a finding of agency. The broker served as an intermediary or courier for the request for insurance, however, there is no evidence that the broker had authority to bind the insurer and the policy was issued by the insurer and not by the broker.
In Dustbane, supra, the broker was negligent for failing to advise of a gap in coverage. However, the Court ruled that had the insured had any knowledge or suspicion that there was a gap in coverage then it might have been open to the court to find the insured contributorily negligent.
Thus, where an insured with the assistance of an insurance broker has knowledge of a potential gap in insurance coverage or knowledge of a situation that might put coverage into dispute, the insured has a responsibility to act on that knowledge so as to protect itself against the possibility of a gap in coverage.
The Court of Appeal in Miller adopted a stricter test in allowing cross-appeal by the insured on the finding of contributory negligence. The Court of Appeal, in disagreeing with the trial judge, found that the insured did not have a duty to enquire about optional motor vehicle insurance benefits unless the insured had knowledge of the availability, importance and meaning of the benefits.
In CIA Inspection Inc. the insured operated a global business inspecting oil refinery coke drums. The insured had two custom built sensors. When the insured was notified that its insurance coverage would not be renewed, it contacted the broker and said it required $600,000 to cover sensors that were on site, in transit and in storage. The insured accepted the broker’s proposal of insurance, which was arranged through an intermediary. The broker did not confirm that the coverage was in place. The insured experienced a loss of a sensor and the insurer denied the claim. The original property coverage that the broker and the client thought existed would have covered the loss. The Court considered whether the president of the insured company was reckless in not pursuing clarification from the brokers after he received cover notes indicating that the policy did not provide for onsite coverage.
In finding that there was contributory negligence, the Court ruled that a client cannot ignore or not read documentation provided by the agent/broker. Given the president’s business expertise and the fact that the sensors were very expensive, the president should have inquired of the agent as to coverage. He should have been more proactive. The plaintiff’s damages were reduced by 33.33% of the loss.
 Fletcher v. Manitoba Public Insurance Corp.,  3 S.C.R. 191, 1990 CarswellOnt 56.
 Fletcher at para 49.
 Fine’s Flowers Ltd. v. General Accident Assurance Co. of Canada, (1977) 2 A.C.W.S. 1022, 1977 CarswellOnt 54.
 Fine’s Flowers at paras 43-44.
 Fine’s Flowers at para 44.
 Lahey v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co.,  1 O.R. 727, 1968 CarswellOnt 269 at para 9 (Ont. High Ct. of Justice).
 Zefferino v. Meloche Monnex Insurance Co., 2012 ONSC 154, 2012 CarswellOnt 490 (Ont. S.C.J.) affirmed 2013 ONCA 127, 2013 CarswellOnt 2224.
 Zefferino at para 34.
 CIA Inspection Inc. v. Dan Lawrie Insurance Brokers, 2010 ONSC 3639, 2010 CarswellOnt 5680 at para 15.
 CIA at para 107.
 Godina v. Tripemco Burlington Insurance Group Ltd., 2013 ONSC 979, 2013 CarswellOnt 1529.
 Godina at paras 20-21.
 Godina at para 24.
 Godina at para 29.
 Godina at para 30.
 Fairbairn v. Rowlands Insurance,  O.J. No. 977, 2003 CarswellOnt 1166 (Ont. S.C.J.).
 Bronfman v. BFL Canada Risk and Insurance Services Inc., 2013 ONSC 5372, 2013 CarswellOnt 15480.
 Bronfman at para 54.
 Dustbane Products Ltd. v. Gifford Associates Insurance Brokers Inc., 2015 ONSC 1036, 2015 CarswellOnt 2526.
 Dustbane Products Ltd. v. Gifford Associates Insurance Brokers Inc., 2015 ONSC 1036, 2015 CarswellOnt 2526 at para 169.
 Fine’s FLowers at para 44.
 Tactics Advertising Inc. v. Hartford Insurance Co. of Canada,  O.J. No. 792, 2000 CarswellOnt 710.
 Tactics at para 20.
 Kalkinis (Litigation Guardian of) v. Allstate Insurance Co. of Canada,  O.J. No. 4466, 1998 CarswellOnt 4255.
 Kalkinis at para 18.
 Kalkinis at para 20.
 Godina v. Tripemco Burlington Insurance Group Ltd., 2013 ONSC 979, 2013 CarswellOnt 1529 at paras 42-43.
 Godina at paras 44-47.
 Zefferino at para 40.
 Zefferino at para 41.
 Miller v. Guardian Insurance Co. of Canada, 1995 CarswellAlta 302 (Alta. Q.B.).
 Miller at para 53.
 Miller at para 55.
 Miller at para 63.
 Miller at para 64.
 Miller at para 64.
 Miller at para 64.
 Ostenda v. Bahena Miranda, 2012 ONSC 7346, 2012 CarswellOnt 16531.
 Ostenda at para 47.
 Ostenda v. Bahena Miranda at para 29.
 Ostenda v. Bahena Miranda at para 37.
 Ostenda v. Bahena Miranda at para 51.
 Ibid at para 189
 Miller v. Guardian Insurance Co. of Canada, 73 A.C.W.S. (3d) 320, 1997 Carswell Alta 704 (Alta C.A.).
 Miller at para 7.
 CIA at para 183.
 CIA at para 23
 CIA at para 184