{"id":5993,"date":"2021-10-07T09:00:32","date_gmt":"2023-08-12T08:04:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/loss-of-use-as-physical-damage-case-summary-of-the-ontario-court-of-appeal-decision-in-mds-inc-v-factory-mutual-insurance-company\/"},"modified":"2026-03-10T14:41:33","modified_gmt":"2026-03-10T18:41:33","slug":"loss-of-use-as-physical-damage-case-summary-of-the-ontario-court-of-appeal-decision-in-mds-inc-v-factory-mutual-insurance-company","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/lloyds-brief\/loss-of-use-as-physical-damage-case-summary-of-the-ontario-court-of-appeal-decision-in-mds-inc-v-factory-mutual-insurance-company\/","title":{"rendered":"Loss of use as &#8220;physical damage&#8221;?  Case summary of the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in <i>MDS Inc. v. Factory Mutual Insurance Company<\/i>"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Introduction<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The Ontario Court of Appeal recently issued its decision in the much-discussed case of <em>MDS Inc. v. Factory Mutual Insurance <\/em>Company<em>, 2021 ONCA 594<\/em><a href=\"#_ftn1\" name=\"_ftnref1\">[1]<\/a><em>.<\/em> The lower court decision from the Superior Court of Justice was of considerable interest to insureds advancing COVID-19 business interruption claims, given its holding that loss of use could constitute \u201cphysical damage.\u201d&nbsp; The Court of Appeal overturned the lower court decision and denied coverage to the insured thus arguably affirming the requirement for physical damage in order to trigger coverage for business interruption loss.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Factual background and Superior Court of Justice<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The insurer, Factory Mutual Insurance Company (\u201cFM\u201d), contracted with MDS Inc. (\u201cMDS\u201d) for a standard policy which provided coverage for \u201call risks of physical loss or damage to the property and contingent time element coverage resulting from a supplier\u2019s business interruption.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The policy excluded losses resulting from corrosion, which was not a defined term. &nbsp;The policy included an exception to this exclusion for \u201cresulting \u2018physical damage not excluded by this Policy\u2019 at specified locations.\u201d Both parties agreed that the exception covered MDS\u2019s supplier Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and their Nuclear Research Universal (\u201cNRU\u201d) reactor.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Corrosion damage caused a shutdown of the NRU for fifteen months. &nbsp;As a result, MDS suffered substantial financial losses and submitted a claim for lost profits which was denied by FM. &nbsp;The policy also excluded loss of market or loss of use, except to the extent provided by the policy, and stipulated that \u201cif physical damage not excluded by this Policy results, then only that resulting damage is insured.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Superior Court of Justice held that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The term corrosion was ambiguous and should be interpreted in light of the dictionary definition but be modified by the reasonable expectation of the parties;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The policy\u2019s corrosion exclusion should only be applied to \u201cnon-fortuitous anticipated corrosion\u201d not unanticipated \u201cfortuitous corrosion\u201d ; and<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The policy\u2019s exception to the corrosion exclusion for \u201cphysical damage not excluded by this Policy\u201d should include economic loss resulting from the loss of use.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Court of Appeal<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The Court of Appeal\u2019s decision focused on the interpretation of insurance contracts and, in particular, addressed the proper interpretation of corrosion and whether an exception for \u201cphysical damage\u201d should be interpreted to include loss of use.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In addressing the issue of contract interpretation generally the Court of Appeal relied on the Supreme Court of Canada decisions in <em>Sattva Capital Corp. v. Creston Moly Corp., 2014 SCC53<\/em><a href=\"#_ftn2\" name=\"_ftnref2\">[2]<\/a><em>, <\/em>and <em>Eli Lilly &amp; Co. v. Novopharm Ltd., 1998 2 S.C.R. 129<\/em><a href=\"#_ftn3\" name=\"_ftnref3\">[3]<\/a>, for the proposition that contract interpretation is an objective exercise and a \u201cparty\u2019s subjective intention has no independent place\u201d in the interpretation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>When dealing with standard form insurance contracts specifically, the Court of Appeal noted the importance of consistent interpretations and that ambiguity should be examined in light of the surrounding circumstances, through the lens of a reasonable person at the time the parties came to an agreement. &nbsp;Further, the words of the contract are given their ordinary meaning, not the meaning they might be given by persons versed in insurance law. &nbsp;However, the interpretation must reach a \u201csensible commercial result that reflects the intention of the parties at the time the agreement was entered into.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>When considering the term \u201ccorrosion\u201d, the Court of Appeal found that the term was not ambiguous. &nbsp;The parties\u2019 subjective intent should not have been considered and the trial judge erred by modifying the plain language use of the term.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Next, and more importantly, the Court of Appeal addressed whether \u201cphysical damage\u201d includes \u201closs of use\u201d damage. &nbsp;The policy provided that if physical damage not excluded by the policy occurs, then only that resulting damage is insured. &nbsp;Physical damage was not defined.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The losses suffered by MDS were a result of shutdown due to the need to repair the corrosion, not from other property damage. The Court of Appeal found that Canadian, British and American authorities have all held that exclusions for physical damage do not include loss of use or pure economic loss unless otherwise specifically provided for.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Ultimately, the Court of Appeal determined that, although the leak caused by the corrosion resulted in the shutdown, the shutdown itself is not resulting physical damage. &nbsp;The exclusion for corrosion damage was restricted to resulting physical damage to MDS\u2019s insured property or that of its suppliers. &nbsp;A contextual analysis of the policy did not merit a broader interpretation, particularly when considering the policy generally excluded loss of market and loss of use damages.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Takeaway<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Although the Court of Appeal noted that its decision turned on the specific wording of the particular policy in issue (as is always the case with the interpretation of any insurance policy), the decision is significant because it reaffirms the requirement for actual physical damage to trigger coverage for loss resulting from \u201cphysical damage.\u201d&nbsp; Loss of use or pure economic loss does not constitute \u201cphysical damage.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref1\" name=\"_ftn1\">[1]<\/a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 2021 ONCA 594.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref2\" name=\"_ftn2\">[2]<\/a> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 2014 SCC 53.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref3\" name=\"_ftn3\">[3]<\/a> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; [1998] 2 SCR 129.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Introduction The Ontario Court of Appeal recently issued its decision in the much-discussed case of MDS Inc. v. Factory Mutual Insurance Company, 2021 ONCA 594[1]. The lower court decision from the Superior Court of Justice was of considerable interest to insureds advancing COVID-19 business interruption claims, given its holding that loss of use could constitute [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":100,"featured_media":14371,"parent":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[536],"insight-format":[416],"class_list":["post-5993","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-lloyds-brief"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v26.1.1 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>Loss of use as &quot;physical damage&quot;? Case summary of the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in MDS Inc. v. Factory Mutual Insurance Company | Miller Thomson<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/lloyds-brief\/loss-of-use-as-physical-damage-case-summary-of-the-ontario-court-of-appeal-decision-in-mds-inc-v-factory-mutual-insurance-company\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Loss of use as &quot;physical damage&quot;? Case summary of the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in MDS Inc. v. Factory Mutual Insurance Company | Miller Thomson\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Introduction The Ontario Court of Appeal recently issued its decision in the much-discussed case of MDS Inc. v. Factory Mutual Insurance Company, 2021 ONCA 594[1]. The lower court decision from the Superior Court of Justice was of considerable interest to insureds advancing COVID-19 business interruption claims, given its holding that loss of use could constitute [&hellip;]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/lloyds-brief\/loss-of-use-as-physical-damage-case-summary-of-the-ontario-court-of-appeal-decision-in-mds-inc-v-factory-mutual-insurance-company\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Miller Thomson\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/MillerThomsonLaw\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2023-08-12T08:04:04+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-03-10T18:41:33+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"believeco\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@millerthomson\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@millerthomson\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"believeco\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/lloyds-brief\/loss-of-use-as-physical-damage-case-summary-of-the-ontario-court-of-appeal-decision-in-mds-inc-v-factory-mutual-insurance-company\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/lloyds-brief\/loss-of-use-as-physical-damage-case-summary-of-the-ontario-court-of-appeal-decision-in-mds-inc-v-factory-mutual-insurance-company\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"believeco\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/ae50f6e0b1c66658587aa8d9d9252892\"},\"headline\":\"Loss of use as &#8220;physical damage&#8221;? Case summary of the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in MDS Inc. v. Factory Mutual Insurance Company\",\"datePublished\":\"2023-08-12T08:04:04+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-03-10T18:41:33+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/lloyds-brief\/loss-of-use-as-physical-damage-case-summary-of-the-ontario-court-of-appeal-decision-in-mds-inc-v-factory-mutual-insurance-company\/\"},\"wordCount\":860,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/lloyds-brief\/loss-of-use-as-physical-damage-case-summary-of-the-ontario-court-of-appeal-decision-in-mds-inc-v-factory-mutual-insurance-company\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/Insights_Lloyd-s-Brief_Post-Image.jpg\",\"articleSection\":[\"Lloyd's Brief\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":[\"WebPage\",\"ItemPage\"],\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/lloyds-brief\/loss-of-use-as-physical-damage-case-summary-of-the-ontario-court-of-appeal-decision-in-mds-inc-v-factory-mutual-insurance-company\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/lloyds-brief\/loss-of-use-as-physical-damage-case-summary-of-the-ontario-court-of-appeal-decision-in-mds-inc-v-factory-mutual-insurance-company\/\",\"name\":\"Loss of use as \\\"physical damage\\\"? Case summary of the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in MDS Inc. v. Factory Mutual Insurance Company | Miller Thomson\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/lloyds-brief\/loss-of-use-as-physical-damage-case-summary-of-the-ontario-court-of-appeal-decision-in-mds-inc-v-factory-mutual-insurance-company\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/lloyds-brief\/loss-of-use-as-physical-damage-case-summary-of-the-ontario-court-of-appeal-decision-in-mds-inc-v-factory-mutual-insurance-company\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/Insights_Lloyd-s-Brief_Post-Image.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2023-08-12T08:04:04+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-03-10T18:41:33+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/lloyds-brief\/loss-of-use-as-physical-damage-case-summary-of-the-ontario-court-of-appeal-decision-in-mds-inc-v-factory-mutual-insurance-company\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/lloyds-brief\/loss-of-use-as-physical-damage-case-summary-of-the-ontario-court-of-appeal-decision-in-mds-inc-v-factory-mutual-insurance-company\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/lloyds-brief\/loss-of-use-as-physical-damage-case-summary-of-the-ontario-court-of-appeal-decision-in-mds-inc-v-factory-mutual-insurance-company\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/Insights_Lloyd-s-Brief_Post-Image.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/Insights_Lloyd-s-Brief_Post-Image.jpg\",\"width\":1776,\"height\":994},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/lloyds-brief\/loss-of-use-as-physical-damage-case-summary-of-the-ontario-court-of-appeal-decision-in-mds-inc-v-factory-mutual-insurance-company\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Loss of use as &#8220;physical damage&#8221;? Case summary of the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in MDS Inc. v. Factory Mutual Insurance Company\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/\",\"name\":\"Miller Thomson\",\"description\":\"National law firm providing business law expertise and litigation and disputes services for businesses across Canada since 1957.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Miller Thomson\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/miller-thomson.svg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/miller-thomson.svg\",\"width\":380,\"height\":50,\"caption\":\"Miller Thomson\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/MillerThomsonLaw\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/millerthomson\",\"https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/company\/miller-thomson-llp\/\",\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@millerthomson\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/ae50f6e0b1c66658587aa8d9d9252892\",\"name\":\"believeco\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/0630e548257b5beb2605be4633af29f897bd2b9a93553a9f26c61b3b65763899?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/0630e548257b5beb2605be4633af29f897bd2b9a93553a9f26c61b3b65763899?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"believeco\"}}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Loss of use as \"physical damage\"? Case summary of the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in MDS Inc. v. Factory Mutual Insurance Company | Miller Thomson","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/lloyds-brief\/loss-of-use-as-physical-damage-case-summary-of-the-ontario-court-of-appeal-decision-in-mds-inc-v-factory-mutual-insurance-company\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Loss of use as \"physical damage\"? Case summary of the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in MDS Inc. v. Factory Mutual Insurance Company | Miller Thomson","og_description":"Introduction The Ontario Court of Appeal recently issued its decision in the much-discussed case of MDS Inc. v. Factory Mutual Insurance Company, 2021 ONCA 594[1]. The lower court decision from the Superior Court of Justice was of considerable interest to insureds advancing COVID-19 business interruption claims, given its holding that loss of use could constitute [&hellip;]","og_url":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/lloyds-brief\/loss-of-use-as-physical-damage-case-summary-of-the-ontario-court-of-appeal-decision-in-mds-inc-v-factory-mutual-insurance-company\/","og_site_name":"Miller Thomson","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/MillerThomsonLaw\/","article_published_time":"2023-08-12T08:04:04+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-03-10T18:41:33+00:00","author":"believeco","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@millerthomson","twitter_site":"@millerthomson","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"believeco","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/lloyds-brief\/loss-of-use-as-physical-damage-case-summary-of-the-ontario-court-of-appeal-decision-in-mds-inc-v-factory-mutual-insurance-company\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/lloyds-brief\/loss-of-use-as-physical-damage-case-summary-of-the-ontario-court-of-appeal-decision-in-mds-inc-v-factory-mutual-insurance-company\/"},"author":{"name":"believeco","@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/ae50f6e0b1c66658587aa8d9d9252892"},"headline":"Loss of use as &#8220;physical damage&#8221;? Case summary of the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in MDS Inc. v. Factory Mutual Insurance Company","datePublished":"2023-08-12T08:04:04+00:00","dateModified":"2026-03-10T18:41:33+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/lloyds-brief\/loss-of-use-as-physical-damage-case-summary-of-the-ontario-court-of-appeal-decision-in-mds-inc-v-factory-mutual-insurance-company\/"},"wordCount":860,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/lloyds-brief\/loss-of-use-as-physical-damage-case-summary-of-the-ontario-court-of-appeal-decision-in-mds-inc-v-factory-mutual-insurance-company\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/Insights_Lloyd-s-Brief_Post-Image.jpg","articleSection":["Lloyd's Brief"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":["WebPage","ItemPage"],"@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/lloyds-brief\/loss-of-use-as-physical-damage-case-summary-of-the-ontario-court-of-appeal-decision-in-mds-inc-v-factory-mutual-insurance-company\/","url":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/lloyds-brief\/loss-of-use-as-physical-damage-case-summary-of-the-ontario-court-of-appeal-decision-in-mds-inc-v-factory-mutual-insurance-company\/","name":"Loss of use as \"physical damage\"? Case summary of the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in MDS Inc. v. Factory Mutual Insurance Company | Miller Thomson","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/lloyds-brief\/loss-of-use-as-physical-damage-case-summary-of-the-ontario-court-of-appeal-decision-in-mds-inc-v-factory-mutual-insurance-company\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/lloyds-brief\/loss-of-use-as-physical-damage-case-summary-of-the-ontario-court-of-appeal-decision-in-mds-inc-v-factory-mutual-insurance-company\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/Insights_Lloyd-s-Brief_Post-Image.jpg","datePublished":"2023-08-12T08:04:04+00:00","dateModified":"2026-03-10T18:41:33+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/lloyds-brief\/loss-of-use-as-physical-damage-case-summary-of-the-ontario-court-of-appeal-decision-in-mds-inc-v-factory-mutual-insurance-company\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/lloyds-brief\/loss-of-use-as-physical-damage-case-summary-of-the-ontario-court-of-appeal-decision-in-mds-inc-v-factory-mutual-insurance-company\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/lloyds-brief\/loss-of-use-as-physical-damage-case-summary-of-the-ontario-court-of-appeal-decision-in-mds-inc-v-factory-mutual-insurance-company\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/Insights_Lloyd-s-Brief_Post-Image.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/Insights_Lloyd-s-Brief_Post-Image.jpg","width":1776,"height":994},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/lloyds-brief\/loss-of-use-as-physical-damage-case-summary-of-the-ontario-court-of-appeal-decision-in-mds-inc-v-factory-mutual-insurance-company\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Loss of use as &#8220;physical damage&#8221;? Case summary of the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in MDS Inc. v. Factory Mutual Insurance Company"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/","name":"Miller Thomson","description":"National law firm providing business law expertise and litigation and disputes services for businesses across Canada since 1957.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/#organization","name":"Miller Thomson","url":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/miller-thomson.svg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/miller-thomson.svg","width":380,"height":50,"caption":"Miller Thomson"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/MillerThomsonLaw\/","https:\/\/x.com\/millerthomson","https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/company\/miller-thomson-llp\/","https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@millerthomson"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/ae50f6e0b1c66658587aa8d9d9252892","name":"believeco","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/0630e548257b5beb2605be4633af29f897bd2b9a93553a9f26c61b3b65763899?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/0630e548257b5beb2605be4633af29f897bd2b9a93553a9f26c61b3b65763899?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"believeco"}}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5993","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/100"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5993"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5993\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":47446,"href":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5993\/revisions\/47446"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/14371"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5993"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5993"},{"taxonomy":"insight-format","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/insight-format?post=5993"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}