of their differences, with a letter explaining their positions on
 There were no submissions as to costs. The plaintiff shall
deliver written submissions within 15 days or such further time
as the parties may agree. The respondents shall have the same
amount of time within which to reply. Submissions shall be limited to five pages, excluding the costs outline.
Belair Direct v. Shoup et al.
[Indexed as: Belair Direct v. Shoup]
2012 ONSC 4652
Superior Court of Justice, Morgan J. August 8, 2012
Insurance — Exclusion clauses — Parents and minor son insured
under homeowner’s policy that excluded coverage for bodily injury
caused by any intentional or criminal act or failure to act — Plaintiff in
main action shot with pellet gun fired from window of car driven by son
— Son convicted of possession of weapon for dangerous purpose —
Plaintiff suing all three insured and alleging that parents failed to
properly supervise and raise son — Insured covered individually —
Individual assessment of their coverage and applicability of exclusion
clause required — Claim against son falling within exclusion clause —
Phrase “intentional or criminal” modifying “failure to act” as well as
“act” — Claim against parents not excluded.
The respondents were insured under a homeowner’s insurance policy that
excluded coverage for bodily injury caused by any intentional or criminal act or
failure to act. The plaintiff in the main action was allegedly injured when he was
shot with a pellet gun fired from the window of a car being driven by the
respondent PM, who was a minor at the time. PM was subsequently convicted of
possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose. The plaintiff sued all three
respondents, alleging that the actions of PM caused or contributed to the plaintiff’s injuries and that the adult respondents failed, as PM’s parents, to properly
supervise and raise him. The applicant insurer brought an application for a declaration that it was not required to defend the main action as the conduct of the
respondents fell within the exclusion clause in the policy.
Held, the application should be allowed in part.
The respondents were covered individually under the policy, and their coverage, and the applicability of the exclusion clause, had to be assessed individually.
The claim against PM fell within the exclusion clause. The words “intentional or
criminal” in the exclusion clause modify “failure to act” as well as “act”. The claim
against the adult respondents did not fall within the exclusion clause, and the
applicant was required to defend it.