SPIS ~ Miersma and Pembridge

Do Insurance Companies Understand MSP Cyber Risk? - MSP Alliance

Insurance Backs Up SPIS

This was an application brought in October 2005 before the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario to determine whether a policy of insurance covered a false statement under a Seller Property Information Statement (SPIS) pursuant to an agreement of purchase and sale.

Mr. and Mrs. Pinkerton bought certain property in Picton, Ontario from Mr. and Mrs. Miersma. Pursuant to that agreement, there was a SPIS which included representations alleged to be false concerning a septic system and an underground storage tank.

The purchasers sued the vendors for false representations in the SPIS, both in contract and tort. Upon receipt of the claim, the vendors reported the matter to their insurer, Pembridge Insurance Company. The insurer took the position that the insurance policy did not cover this claim, since it was a claim in contract.

The purpose of this application was to determine whether the insurer had a “duty to defend” under the insurance policy. The actual merits of the lawsuit are not in question, just the issue of coverage under the policy.

The Court observed:

The duty of a liability insurer to defend will be triggered if, on a reasonable reading of the pleadings, they allege facts, which, if true, would require the insurer to indemnify the insured for the claim.

The mere possibility that a claim falling within the policy may succeed will suffice.

In its decision in BG Checo International Ltd. v. British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority, 1993 CanLII 145 (S.C.C.), [1993] 1 S.C.R. 12, the Supreme Court of Canada stated that where a given wrong prima facie supports an action in contract and in tort, the party may sue in either or both, subject to any limit the parties themselves have placed on that right by their contract.

The statement of claim:

The particulars of the negligence pleaded against the defendants are as follows:

(a) they represented that they did not know of any underground fuel oil storage tank when they had themselves disconnected the tank some years previously and left it in the ground;

(b) they represented that the septic system was constructed in conformity with applicable laws and was in good working order when they knew or ought to have known that there was an unlawful effluent line allowing leachate to move into the Bay of Quinte;

(c) they represented that all environmental laws and regulations had been complied with when they knew or ought to have known that they had not complied with the shutdown and removal requirements relating to the underground fuel oil storage tank in accordance with the provisions of the Technical Standards and Safety Act 2000;

(d) they represented to the best of their knowledge no hazardous condition or substance existed on the premises when they knew or ought to have known that their failure to properly decommission and remove the underground fuel oil storage tank left a hazardous condition or substance on the land.

Further, and in the alternative, the plaintiffs state that the defendants are liable for damages for breach of contract by reason of the breach of the express warranties contained in the Agreement of Purchase and Sale.

Decision of the Court

“In my view, the present case is similar to that in BG Checo, supra, where the court held that a pre-contractual representation which becomes a contractual term could found liability in negligent misrepresentation. This is the situation referred to in BG Checo where it was held that the duty in contract and the common law duty in tort are co-extensive.”


This imposes an additional burden upon insurers if they are to provide insurance coverage for this type of claim. You might quickly see that general homeowners’ liability policies will soon begin to exclude coverage for this type of claim. You might be able to purchase it, but you will have to buy it and pay a premium rated to its risk.

The case is important because it means that the vendor will have money to pay any judgment. Why? There’s insurance! Also, the proceedings will become somewhat more costly. Why? There’s insurance, and a professional litigant will incur greater expense. Further, a lawsuit like this is more likely. Why? There’s insurance! The first insurer pays the loss to the purchaser. It then determines whether it can sue anyone to recover. Now, it can sue the vendor for negligent statements under the SPIS. So, it initiates proceedings, and just hopes that it is not the insurer for the vendors.

Brian Madigan LL.B., Broker


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *