On December 19, 2012, the Superior Court delivered an interesting verdict regarding which elements may be analyzed by the Court while ruling on an insurer’s duty to defend.
In Immeubles Stageline Inc. v. Distribution Tapico Inc., the Superior Court showed flexibility in its ruling on an insurer’s duty to defend by authorizing the examination of the correspondence between the insurer and the insured.
Since the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Progressive Homes Ltd., one might wonder, in principle, what are the elements that the court must analyze in order to assess the scope of the insurer’s duty to defend.
Read more (in French only).
