• About
  • Offices
  • Careers
  • News
  • Students
  • Alumni
  • Payments
  • EN | FR
Background Image
Bennett Jones Logo
  • People
  • Expertise
  • Knowledge
  • Search
  • FR Menu
  • Search Mobile
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
View all
Practices
Corporate Litigation Regulatory Tax View all
Industries
Energy Infrastructure Mining Private Equity & Investment Funds View all
Advisory
Crisis & Risk Management Public Policy
View Client Work
International Experience
Insights News Events Subscribe
Arbitration Angle Artificial Intelligence Insights Business Law Talks Podcast Class Actions: Looking Forward Class Action Quick Takes
Economic Outlook New Energy Economy Series Quarterly Fintech Insights Quarterly M&A Insights Sustainability & the CIO
People
Offices
About
Practices
Industries
Advisory Services
Client Work
Insights
News
Events
Careers
Law Students
Alumni
Payments
Search
Subscribe

Stay informed on the latest business and legal insights and events.

LinkedIn LinkedIn Twitter Twitter Vimeo Vimeo
 

Summary Applications on Duty to Defend

July 29, 2022

Christine A. Viney, Bruce Mellett and Patrick Schembri write about the Alberta Court of Appeal's summary of the key principles that apply when an insured seeks a declaration that an insurer’s duty to defend has been triggered before liability in the underlying action has been determined in the Lawyer's Daily.

They write, "The court repeatedly emphasizes the need to avoid premature findings of fact that could affect liability in the underlying action" and "finds the lower court’s interpretation of the policy reviewable on a deferential standard, on the basis that the policy under consideration was not a standard form contract."

"In reviewing the key principles applicable to summary proceedings in which an insured seeks confirmation that its insurer is obliged to defend a claim, the Alberta Court of Appeal emphasizes the limited role of factual findings, particularly when those findings may be relevant to liability in the underlying action."

In Optrics Inc. v Lloyd’s Underwriters 2022 ABCA 26, "this led the Court of Appeal to adopt a more expansive view of the potential meaning of the contract between the parties and to reject the lower court’s interpretation of that contract as premature."

Read the full article on the Lawyer's Daily website.

Key Contacts

  • Christine A. Viney Christine A. Viney, Partner
  • E. Bruce Mellett KC E. Bruce Mellett KC, Partner
  • Patrick  Schembri Patrick Schembri, Associate

Related Links

  • Insights
  • Media
  • Subscribe

Related Expertise

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Health Law

Recent Posts

In The News

Follow-Ons and Convertibles in Canada’s Equity Capital Markets

May 29, 2025
       

Client Work

Silver Viper Minerals to Acquire Cimarron Gold-Copper Project from CSAC Holdings Inc.

May 27, 2025
       

Updates

Class Actions: Looking Forward 2025

May 22, 2025
       

Speaking Engagements

Lincoln Caylor Speaks on Report Writing in OBA Investigation Series

May 20, 2025
       

In The News

How To Stay Resilient in an Uncertain World

May 16, 2025
       

Announcements

Bennett Jones Wins Big at Benchmark Litigation Awards

May 09, 2025
       

In The News

Managing Risk Amid Tariff Chaos

May 09, 2025
       

Speaking Engagements

Insights on Tariff Strategy and Cross-Border Trade Compliance

May 08, 2025
       

In The News

John Manley on NPR’s Morning Edition on Mark Carney’s White House Visit

May 06, 2025
       
Bennett Jones Centennial Footer
Bennett Jones Centennial Footer
About
  • Leadership
  • Diversity
  • Community
  • Innovation
  • Security
Offices
  • Calgary
  • Edmonton
  • Montréal
  • Ottawa
  • Toronto
  • Vancouver
  • New York
Connect
  • Insights
  • News
  • Events
  • Careers
  • Students
  • Alumni
Subscribe

Stay informed on the latest business and legal insights and events.

LinkedIn LinkedIn Twitter Twitter Vimeo Vimeo
© Bennett Jones LLP 2025. All rights reserved.
  • Privacy Policy
  • Disclaimer
  • Terms of Use
Logo Bennett Jones