Harvey’s Oil v. Lombard General Ins., 2003 NLSCTD 158 (CanLII)

This case was heard in the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador (Trial Division).

After Harvey’s Oil Limited ("Harvey’s") was sued for negligence causing oil contamination on several properties, the company’s insurer denied that it had an obligation to defend the company against the lawsuit.

Harvey’s was in the business of delivering fuel oil to residential properties, and it had both “Automobile Insurance Coverage” and “Commercial General Liability Coverage” through Lombard General Insurance ("Lombard"). After Harvey’s was accused of causing contamination by delivering fuel oil to fuel supply systems that it had not maintained properly, Lombard argued that the delivery of the fuel oil by tank wagon did not fall within the scope of the “Automobile Insurance Coverage,” and it also argued that an exclusion clause in Harvey’s insurance policy meant that the “Commercial General Liability Coverage” limited Lombard’s liability for pollution.

After considering the relevant law and the terms of the policy itself, the Court rejected Lombard’s arguments and held that the insurance company did have a duty to defend Harvey’s against the suits that it was facing.

To read about this case in the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal, go to Lombard General Insurance Company of Canada v. Harvey’s Oil Limited, 2004 NLCA 9 (CanLII).

View the Decision on CanLII: https://www.canlii.org/en/nl/nlsctd/doc/2003/2003nlsctd158/2003nlsctd158.html

Disclaimer:
Case briefs in our Resource Library are drafted by law students who work or volunteer with East Coast Environmental Law, and East Coast Environmental Law does not guarantee their fullness or accuracy. Library users should not rely on case briefs as comprehensive accounts of the issues, facts, reasoning, or outcomes at stake in any given case. 

If you require more detailed information about a court decision or legal issue, please consider using our Environmental Law Inquiry Service to request information from our staff.

Previous
Previous

R v Castonguay, 2003 NBPC 16

Next
Next

R v Sappier and Polchies, 2003 NBQB 389