Skip to content

Client Update – Protecting the innocent in property insurance: recent amendments to Nova Scotia’s Insurance Act limit “criminal or intentional act” exclusion clauses

Jennifer Taylor

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.

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.

SHARE

Archive

Search Archive


 
 

Prince Edward Island adopts new Municipal Government Act

December 22, 2016

Perlene Morrison Prince Edward Island’s municipal legislation is being modernized with the implementation of the Municipal Government Act (the “MGA”). The legislation has now received royal assent and will be proclaimed in force at a future date.…

Read More

Land Use Planning in Prince Edward Island: The Year in Review

December 20, 2016

Jonathan Coady and Chera-Lee Gomez It’s that time of year – the moment when we look back at the year that was and chart our course for the year ahead. For many councillors, administrators and planning professionals…

Read More

The Latest in Labour Law: A Stewart McKelvey Newsletter – Onsite OHS liability: Who is (and who is not) the true constructor?

December 15, 2016

Peter McLellan, QC and Michelle Black In a recent decision, R v McCarthy’s Roofing Limited, Judge Anne Derrick provided some much-needed clarity around what it means to be a “constructor” on a job site. This is critical as…

Read More

Federal Government’s Cannabis Report: What does it mean for employers?

December 15, 2016

Rick Dunlop On December 13, 2016, the Government of Canada released A Framework for the Legalization and Regulation of Cannabis in Canada: The Final Report of the Task Force on Cannabis Legalization and Regulation (“Report”). The Report’s…

Read More

Canadian employers facing marijuana challenges in the workplace

November 25, 2016

Brian Johnston, QC Canadian employers are already coping with approximately 75,000 Canadians authorized to use medical marijuana. Health Canada expects that this number will increase to about 450,000 by 2024. Employers know that medical marijuana…

Read More

You’ve got mail – Ontario Court of Appeal sends a constitutional message to municipalities about community mailboxes

October 28, 2016

Jonathan Coady With its decision in Canada Post Corporation v. City of Hamilton,1 the Ontario Court of Appeal has confirmed that the placement of community mailboxes by Canada Post is a matter beyond the reach of municipalities…

Read More

A window on interpreting insurance contracts: Top 10 points from Ledcor Construction

September 23, 2016

Jennifer Taylor Introduction Thanks to some dirty windows, insurance lawyers have a new go-to Supreme Court case on issues of policy interpretation: Ledcor Construction Ltd v Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Co, 2016 SCC 37. The insurers in Ledcor Construction had…

Read More

Charter-ing a Different Course? Two decisions on TWU’s proposed law school

August 11, 2016

Jennifer Taylor Introduction Appeal courts in Ontario1 and Nova Scotia2 have now issued decisions about Trinity Western University’s proposed law school (“TWU”) in British Columbia, and at first glance they couldn’t be more different. The Court of Appeal for…

Read More

Restart the Clock!: Confirmation and resetting limitation periods in Tuck v. Supreme Holdings, 2016 NLCA 40

August 11, 2016

Joe Thorne1 and Giles Ayers2 Limitation periods serve a critical function in the civil justice system. They promote the timely resolution of litigation on the basis of reliable evidence, and permit litigants to assess their legal exposure…

Read More

Client Update: SCC issues major decision affecting federal employers: Wilson v. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited

July 15, 2016

On July 14, 2016 the Supreme Court of Canada issued a significant decision affecting federally regulated employers across Canada. In Wilson v. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited the Court held that the purpose of the unjust dismissal…

Read More

Search Archive


Scroll To Top