The Facts Giving Rise to the Insurance Claim

In this case[1], Gilles Gauvin and France Boislard, owners of a residence in Montréal, suffered damage when an ash tree fell onto their house. The tree damaged a roof covered with an Ondura-type roofing material. The plaintiffs submitted a claim to their insurer, Intact Insurance.

Intact suggested that the insureds retain their own contractor. The plaintiffs therefore hired Toitures Supérieures FP Inc., which suggested replacing the entire roof with a steel roofing system. Intact ultimately agreed to indemnify the plaintiffs for the complete replacement of the roof and paid approximately $78,292.

Shortly after the contract was awarded, Toitures Supérieures claimed various additional amounts for allegedly unforeseen work. The plaintiffs consistently refused to pay any sum exceeding the insurance proceeds. Intact rejected most of these additional claims on the basis that they constituted upgrades or code-compliance improvements that were not covered under the policy.

As soon as the first steel panels were installed, the plaintiffs observed widespread transverse buckling and surface irregularities. Toitures Supérieures maintained that these deformations were temporary and would disappear. However, the defects persisted.

The contractor subsequently abandoned the project before completion, and various items of property damage were caused. The plaintiffs therefore commenced proceedings against both Toitures Supérieures and his own insurer Intact.

The Court held Toitures Supérieures liable and awarded the plaintiffs compensatory damages as well as punitive damages. However, the action against Intact was dismissed in its entirety

The Debate Concerning the Insurer’s Obligations

The issue regarding Intact was whether the insurer could be held liable for deficiencies and poor workmanship committed by the roofing contractor and whether it had properly fulfilled its indemnity obligations arising from the homeowner’s insurance policy. The plaintiffs advanced three principal arguments.

First, they alleged that Intact had effectively selected or retained Toitures Supérieures and should therefore be liable for the quality of the work. Second, Intact’s claims adjuster had failed to adequately supervise the file, particularly by not attending the site and not monitoring the work. Third, Intact had wrongly refused certain amounts claimed for additional work and therefore had not fully indemnified their loss.

The Court accepted Intact’s position. Under the insurance contract, the insurer’s obligation was limited to paying an indemnity corresponding to the covered loss. Intact had never exercised the option provided for under Article 2494 C.C.Q., which allows an insurer to elect to repair, rebuild or replace the damaged property itself instead of paying compensation. Consequently, Intact neither entered into a contract with Toitures Supérieures nor assumed control of the work. The roofing contract had been negotiated directly between the plaintiffs and the contractor.

The Court noted that the quotations were addressed to the plaintiffs, who accepted the proposed work, received and negotiated the insurance proceeds, personally delivered the deposits to the contractor, and withheld part of the contract price once problems arose. These facts demonstrated that the contract for work and services existed solely between the plaintiffs and Toitures Supérieures. Accordingly, Intact was not a guarantor of the quality of the work.

With respect to the conduct of the claims adjuster, the Court concluded that no fault had been established. The insureds had been informed that they could either wait for a contractor from the insurer’s preferred network or conduct their own search. The plaintiffs freely chose the latter option.

Finally, regarding the refusal to pay for certain additional work, several claims related to improvements or code-compliance upgrades arising from the plaintiffs’ decision to install a steel roof rather than replace the existing roofing system with a comparable product. The Court largely accepted Intact’s analysis and held that the refusal to pay for work associated with the change of roofing system was reasonable.

Key Takeaways

Ultimately, the Court concludes that Intact fulfilled its contractual obligations, committed no fault in the handling of the claim, and is not liable for the defective workmanship, delays, or abandonment of the project by the contractor selected by the insureds. For these reasons, the claim against Intact is dismissed in its entirety, with costs.

In practice, it is not uncommon for an insurer to retain a contractor from its preferred vendor network. It may also be the claims adjuster who selects the contractor. In any event, an insurer could become responsible for the quality of the work if it retains the contractor’s services, which explains insurers’ preference for indemnifying the insured and immediately exercising their right of subrogation.

[1] Gauvin c. Toitures supérieures FP inc., 2026 QCCS 2513.