top of page
< Back

Save this article  > 

How “Guaranteed” is Guaranteed Replacement Cost? The Ontario Superior Court Weighs In

Sean McGarry
Publication date:
Not Available
Article Summary: 

The article discusses a recent decision by the Ontario Superior Court regarding the interpretation of a "Guaranteed Replacement Cost" (GRC) clause in a homeowner's insurance policy. The case, Emond v. Trillium Mutual Insurance Company, involved a flood that rendered the insured's home a total loss, leading to a dispute over coverage for zoning-related expenses. The court found that the wording of the exclusion clause in the policy did not apply to zoning restrictions, and even if it did, it would have been invalidated as inconsistent with the main purpose of insurance coverage. The decision raises concerns for underwriters regarding the interpretation of exclusion clauses and the potential need for clearer policy language.


Guaranteed Replacement Cost (GRC), homeowner's insurance, Ontario Superior Court, insurance coverage, exclusion clause, zoning restrictions, nullification of coverage doctrine, interpretation, underwriters, insurance policy language.

Source Citation: 
Sean McGarry
How “Guaranteed” is Guaranteed Replacement Cost? The Ontario Superior Court Weighs In
Not Available
Did you find this article useful? 
Your feedback is important not only to us, but to all the other key players in the condo industry.  Help us by letting us know if this article is relevant and useful.  This will help us prioritize articles that provide helpful guidance to other key players like you. 

Please login to use this feature.

bottom of page