{"id":6240,"date":"2022-10-27T12:40:37","date_gmt":"2022-10-27T16:40:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/two-insurers-mutual-policyholder-duty-to-defend\/"},"modified":"2025-12-29T18:38:23","modified_gmt":"2025-12-29T23:38:23","slug":"two-insurers-mutual-policyholder-duty-to-defend","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/insurance\/two-insurers-mutual-policyholder-duty-to-defend\/","title":{"rendered":"Two insurers, a mutual policyholder, and the duty to defend"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Ontario Court of Appeal upholds Application Judge\u2019s treatment of Property Report Evidence<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

In AIG Insurance Company of Canada (\u201cAIG\u201d) v Lloyd\u2019s Underwriters (\u201cLloyd\u2019s\u201d)<\/em><\/a> (2022 ONCA 699), the Ontario Court of Appeal was tasked with answering \u201cwhether two insurers have a duty to defend a mutual policy holder in a progressive property damage claim.\u201d[1]<\/a> The Court ultimately dismissed Lloyd\u2019s <\/em>appeal and left in place a previous order requiring Lloyd\u2019s <\/em>and AIG <\/em>to equally share the costs to defend the policyholder (City of Timmins).    <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Background Facts<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Karine and Marcel Forget the (\u201cHomeowners\u201d) purchased a vacant lot in 2012 upon which they intended to build a home. The lot was situated near the Mattagami river flowing through the City of Timmins (the \u201cCity\u201d). The Homeowners obtained a building permit from the City in 2013, and built a new home on the property that same year.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Starting around 2016, the slope of an adjoining property began to fail. This resulted in erosion to the Homeowner\u2019s property, impacting the stability of the surrounding land. This continued until 2019, at which time the City issued an order requiring the Homeowners to demolish, remove or relocate their residence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Homeowner\u2019s brought a claim against the City and others based on property damage that occurred between 2016 and 2019. The claim against the City was based on the City\u2019s negligence relating to \u201congoing drainage issues, slope instability, and erosion.\u201d[2]<\/a> During this period, the City had a policy with AIG<\/em> for 2016 and 2017, then Lloyd\u2019s<\/em> for 2018 and 2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Each insurer took a different approach to the City seeking insurance coverage. AIG <\/em>agreed to defend the claim, while Lloyd\u2019s <\/em>denied coverage and subsequently did not defend the claim. Despite each insurer providing different policies (general liability insurance vs. \u201cPublic Entity Casualty Insurance Package Policies\u201d), the policies offered \u201cfunctionally identical\u201d coverage to the City.[3]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lloyd\u2019s Position <\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Lloyd\u2019s <\/em>acknowledged that property damage occurred during its policy period, but denied a  defence because the damage did not constitute an \u201coccurrence\u201d to engage its coverage. In the alternative, Lloyd\u2019s argued that its Exclusion Clause defeated its duty to defend.[4]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lloyd<\/em>\u2019s first contention was underpinned by a report prepared by the City in 2017 which acknowledged and offered recommendations to the homeowner\u2019s property damage issues (the \u201creport\u201d). Within Lloyd\u2019s<\/em> pleadings, the report formed the basis of its argument that an \u201coccurrence\u201d did not occur under the policy because the City did not implement the report before its coverage period began in 2018.[5]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In furtherance of its alternative argument, Lloyd\u2019s<\/em> contended that upon receiving this report, its Exclusion Clause was triggered because additional property damage was no longer accidental.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Application Judge\u2019s Decision <\/h2>\n\n\n\n

On the initial application, Justice Black found that Lloyd\u2019s <\/em>had a duty to defend and share defence costs with AIG<\/em>. The court found that Lloyd\u2019s <\/em>pleadings placed too much emphasis on this report when ultimately, it was \u201cnot sufficiently robust in its analysis and conclusions.\u201d[6]<\/a> Justice Black found it would be potentially controversial to accept Lloyd\u2019s <\/em>position, which could create a \u201ctrial in a trial\u201d because both parties would litigate the report\u2019s conclusions.[7]<\/a> As a result, the Court found that Lloyd\u2019s <\/em>duty to defend was triggered because the report was not an occurrence to avoid coverage, and did not trigger the Exclusion Clause.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Before the decision was rendered, AIG <\/em>and Lloyd\u2019s <\/em>had agreed that if they both had a duty to defend, they would share defence costs on a 50:50 basis.[8]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Analysis <\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Lloyd\u2019s <\/em>appeal was centered on the issue of whether the application judge was mistaken in finding that it owed a duty to defend.[9]<\/a> Lloyd\u2019s <\/em>advanced two main arguments on appeal. First, it asserted that the application judge was mistaken in applying the \u201ctraditional \u2018pleadings rule\u2019 in the duty to defend analysis\u201d, arguing that the report\u2019s use within the statement of claim should be treated as true.[10]<\/a> Second, it alleged that the law surrounding the admissibility of extrinsic evidence and the Exclusion Clause\u2019s applicability was misapplied by the application judge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Justice (of Appeal) Gillese agreed with Justice Black\u2019s conclusions and dismissed the appeal.[11]<\/a> In contrast to Lloyd<\/em>\u2019s argument, the appellate court found that Justice Black had applied the traditional pleadings rule correctly, because he excluded the report as evidence during his considerations. The appellate court reasoned that it is possible to mention the report in the pleadings, but this \u201cdoes not make it part of the pleadings.\u201d[12]<\/a> Instead, the report was to be treated as extrinsic evidence, which could be referred to in pleadings as stated in Monenco Ltd v Commonwealth Insurance Co<\/em> (2001 SCC 49 at para 36).[13]<\/a> The court concluded that the acceptance of the report\u2019s findings would amount to \u201cpremature evidence\u201d since it would affect the other litigation stages without challenge at the pleadings stage.[14]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Justice Gillese went on to reaffirm that the Exclusion Clause also did not apply.[15]<\/a> Lloyd<\/em>\u2019s argument relied on the fact that the City should have \u201cexpected\u201d the property damage, which violates the principle of fortuitous.[16]<\/a> The court found that the Homeowner\u2019s chief claim against the City was based in negligence, which was considered accidental or fortuitous (citing Progressive Homes Ltd v Lombard Insurance Company of Canada<\/em>, 2010 SCC 33 at para 50).[17]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Takeaways <\/h2>\n\n\n\n

AIG v Lloyd\u2019s <\/em>provides some insights for insurers and industry professionals. When two insurance companies are considering their respective \u2018duty to defend\u2019 obligations for the same mutual policyholder, both should be wary of how much weight they place on professional reports to defeat this obligation, at least during the pleadings stage. The \u201cmere possibility\u201d[18]<\/a> test for triggering an insurer\u2019s duty to defend is unlikely to be affected by a professional report where its findings are contestable. Further, an insurer\u2019s Exclusion Clause is likely inapplicable where it also relies on the same type of professional report to deny coverage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Should you have any questions, please feel free to reach out to a member of the Insurance Defence<\/a> team.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[1]<\/a> 2022 ONCA 699 at para 1 [\u201cAIG v<\/em> Lloyd\u2019s<\/em>\u201d].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[2]<\/a> Ibid <\/em>at para 9.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[3]<\/a> Ibid <\/em>at para 15.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[4]<\/a> Ibid <\/em>at para 18.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[5]<\/a> Ibid <\/em>at para 21.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[6]<\/a> Ibid <\/em>at para 25.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[7]<\/a> Ibid <\/em>at paras 24-25.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[8]<\/a> Ibid <\/em>at para 28.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[9]<\/a> Ibid <\/em>at para 29.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[10]<\/a> Ibid <\/em>at para 31.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[11]<\/a> Ibid <\/em>at para 43.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[12]<\/a> Ibid <\/em>at para 51.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[13]<\/a> Ibid <\/em>at para 52, citing 2001 SCC 49 at para 36.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[14]<\/a> Ibid <\/em>at para 54.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[15]<\/a> Ibid <\/em>at para 60.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[16]<\/a> Ibid <\/em>at para 56.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[17]<\/a> Ibid <\/em>at para 58, citing Progressive Homes Ltd v Lombard Insurance Company of Canada<\/em>, 2010 SCC 33 at para 50 [\u201cProgressive Homes<\/em>\u201d].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[18]<\/a> Progressive Homes<\/em>, supra <\/em>note 25 at paras 19-20.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Ontario Court of Appeal upholds Application Judge\u2019s treatment of Property Report Evidence In AIG Insurance Company of Canada (\u201cAIG\u201d) v Lloyd\u2019s Underwriters (\u201cLloyd\u2019s\u201d) (2022 ONCA 699), the Ontario Court of Appeal was tasked with answering \u201cwhether two insurers have a duty to defend a mutual policy holder in a progressive property damage claim.\u201d[1] The Court […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":86,"featured_media":14367,"parent":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[525],"insight-format":[418],"class_list":["post-6240","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-insurance"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nTwo insurers, a mutual policyholder, and the duty to defend | 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\/insurance\/two-insurers-mutual-policyholder-duty-to-defend\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Two insurers, a mutual policyholder, and the duty to defend | Miller Thomson\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Ontario Court of Appeal upholds Application Judge\u2019s treatment of Property Report Evidence In AIG Insurance Company of Canada (\u201cAIG\u201d) v Lloyd\u2019s Underwriters (\u201cLloyd\u2019s\u201d) (2022 ONCA 699), the Ontario Court of Appeal was tasked with answering \u201cwhether two insurers have a duty to defend a mutual policy holder in a progressive property damage claim.\u201d[1] The Court […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/insurance\/two-insurers-mutual-policyholder-duty-to-defend\/\" \/>\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=\"2022-10-27T16:40:37+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-12-29T23:38:23+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/Insights_Insurance_Post-Image.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1776\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"994\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Nyeisha Murray\" \/>\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=\"Nyeisha Murray\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 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\/insurance\/two-insurers-mutual-policyholder-duty-to-defend\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/insurance\/two-insurers-mutual-policyholder-duty-to-defend\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Nyeisha Murray\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/8c49b710501a2ba22438ca72fb0c0c85\"},\"headline\":\"Two insurers, a mutual policyholder, and the duty to defend\",\"datePublished\":\"2022-10-27T16:40:37+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-12-29T23:38:23+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/insurance\/two-insurers-mutual-policyholder-duty-to-defend\/\"},\"wordCount\":1088,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/insurance\/two-insurers-mutual-policyholder-duty-to-defend\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/Insights_Insurance_Post-Image.jpg\",\"articleSection\":[\"Insurance\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":[\"WebPage\",\"ItemPage\"],\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/insurance\/two-insurers-mutual-policyholder-duty-to-defend\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/insurance\/two-insurers-mutual-policyholder-duty-to-defend\/\",\"name\":\"Two insurers, a mutual policyholder, and the duty to defend | Miller Thomson\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/insurance\/two-insurers-mutual-policyholder-duty-to-defend\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/insurance\/two-insurers-mutual-policyholder-duty-to-defend\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/Insights_Insurance_Post-Image.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2022-10-27T16:40:37+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-12-29T23:38:23+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/insurance\/two-insurers-mutual-policyholder-duty-to-defend\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/insurance\/two-insurers-mutual-policyholder-duty-to-defend\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/insurance\/two-insurers-mutual-policyholder-duty-to-defend\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/Insights_Insurance_Post-Image.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/Insights_Insurance_Post-Image.jpg\",\"width\":1776,\"height\":994},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/insurance\/two-insurers-mutual-policyholder-duty-to-defend\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Two insurers, a mutual policyholder, and the duty to defend\"}]},{\"@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\/8c49b710501a2ba22438ca72fb0c0c85\",\"name\":\"Nyeisha Murray\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/ec01113c3c7208ac683f05f5b7f25e187ddf5deabc82d0d9e12aeca8d3b9c851?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/ec01113c3c7208ac683f05f5b7f25e187ddf5deabc82d0d9e12aeca8d3b9c851?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Nyeisha Murray\"}}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Two insurers, a mutual policyholder, and the duty to defend | 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\/insurance\/two-insurers-mutual-policyholder-duty-to-defend\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Two insurers, a mutual policyholder, and the duty to defend | Miller Thomson","og_description":"Ontario Court of Appeal upholds Application Judge\u2019s treatment of Property Report Evidence In AIG Insurance Company of Canada (\u201cAIG\u201d) v Lloyd\u2019s Underwriters (\u201cLloyd\u2019s\u201d) (2022 ONCA 699), the Ontario Court of Appeal was tasked with answering \u201cwhether two insurers have a duty to defend a mutual policy holder in a progressive property damage claim.\u201d[1] The Court […]","og_url":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/insurance\/two-insurers-mutual-policyholder-duty-to-defend\/","og_site_name":"Miller Thomson","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/MillerThomsonLaw\/","article_published_time":"2022-10-27T16:40:37+00:00","article_modified_time":"2025-12-29T23:38:23+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1776,"height":994,"url":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/Insights_Insurance_Post-Image.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Nyeisha Murray","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@millerthomson","twitter_site":"@millerthomson","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Nyeisha Murray","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/insurance\/two-insurers-mutual-policyholder-duty-to-defend\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/insurance\/two-insurers-mutual-policyholder-duty-to-defend\/"},"author":{"name":"Nyeisha Murray","@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/8c49b710501a2ba22438ca72fb0c0c85"},"headline":"Two insurers, a mutual policyholder, and the duty to defend","datePublished":"2022-10-27T16:40:37+00:00","dateModified":"2025-12-29T23:38:23+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/insurance\/two-insurers-mutual-policyholder-duty-to-defend\/"},"wordCount":1088,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/insurance\/two-insurers-mutual-policyholder-duty-to-defend\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/Insights_Insurance_Post-Image.jpg","articleSection":["Insurance"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":["WebPage","ItemPage"],"@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/insurance\/two-insurers-mutual-policyholder-duty-to-defend\/","url":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/insurance\/two-insurers-mutual-policyholder-duty-to-defend\/","name":"Two insurers, a mutual policyholder, and the duty to defend | Miller Thomson","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/insurance\/two-insurers-mutual-policyholder-duty-to-defend\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/insurance\/two-insurers-mutual-policyholder-duty-to-defend\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/Insights_Insurance_Post-Image.jpg","datePublished":"2022-10-27T16:40:37+00:00","dateModified":"2025-12-29T23:38:23+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/insurance\/two-insurers-mutual-policyholder-duty-to-defend\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/insurance\/two-insurers-mutual-policyholder-duty-to-defend\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/insurance\/two-insurers-mutual-policyholder-duty-to-defend\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/Insights_Insurance_Post-Image.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/Insights_Insurance_Post-Image.jpg","width":1776,"height":994},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/insurance\/two-insurers-mutual-policyholder-duty-to-defend\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Two insurers, a mutual policyholder, and the duty to defend"}]},{"@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\/8c49b710501a2ba22438ca72fb0c0c85","name":"Nyeisha Murray","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/ec01113c3c7208ac683f05f5b7f25e187ddf5deabc82d0d9e12aeca8d3b9c851?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/ec01113c3c7208ac683f05f5b7f25e187ddf5deabc82d0d9e12aeca8d3b9c851?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Nyeisha Murray"}}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6240","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\/86"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6240"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6240\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/14367"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6240"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6240"},{"taxonomy":"insight-format","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/insight-format?post=6240"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}