Since hitting a high of US$1.1039 on November 7, 2008, the Canadian dollar has declined steadily and has slowly crept back to reality, trading in the 80-cent range compared to the U.S. dollar. As commodity prices decline and the economy struggles along in a recession, the loonie has been hit hard.

Most commercial liability and auto fleet policies are written for limits of Cdn$2 million or less, which is totally inadequate for Canadian companies operating within Canada, let alone those with U.S. exposures. Even in a full-blown hard market, the incremental cost to raise policy limits to $10 million or $20 million remains affordable.

The figures below clearly illustrate that a dollar isn't necessarily a dollar.

Canadian limit	U.S. Equivalent	Shortfall
$ 1,000,000	$ 792,400	$ 207,600
$ 2,000,000	$ 1,584,800	$ 415,200
$ 5,000,000	$ 3,962,000	$ 1,038,000
$ 10,000,000	$ 7,924,000	$ 2,076,000
$ 20,000,000	$ 15,848,000	$ 4,152,000
Top
Security company must pay $782,000 for fire set intentionally by employee
The world's fifth-largest armoured car and security guard service must pay $782,000 to an insurance company for a fire started by one of its employees at a vacant YMCA in downtown Montreal in April 1999. Twenty-two-year-old Sébastien Farrese, who was hired only six months earlier, was the acting supervisor of the graveyard shift overseeing two other guards. Ignoring standard protocol, he separated the personnel and ordered them to inspect the premises individually. All alone, he then set the building on fire. Farrese later confessed that he lit the fire with the intention of stifling it to demonstrate that he "was master of the situation and show the others that he was a good agent." Justice Chantal Masse ruled that vicarious liability should be attached to the security company because it faced an inherent risk in the ordinary course of running a security business - that is, the people it entrusted to guard against external threats may misuse that trust to threaten the property themselves. Farrese was subsequently sentenced to two years less a day served in the community plus two years probation.
Top
Security and Protection Industry program
Our security industry professional program delivers broad insurance cover and excellent service at competitive premium terms. Our custom-designed policy wording has been developed to respond to the special needs of the security and protection industry. Cover includes the - failure to perform - risk, which most other carriers just can't cover. We've been handling this class of business for over 20 years - longer than anyone else in the business. "Your service is security," says Mary MacLaren of our Toronto office. "A faulty signal, improper installation or an interruption in service can jeopardize the very property which your service is expected to protect. That's why you need to buy the very best liability insurance protection you can find, at a premium you can afford." In 2009, our program reaches a wider range of security and protection professionals than ever before, including: Security guards, including armed officers and canine patrols Burglar alarm installers Alarm central stations Sprinkler and fire protection installers Private investigators Locksmiths Call centres Telephone answering and paging services Cellular phone, industrial radio and communication equipment - manufacture, sales and service Security equipment - CCTV, intercom and access control systems, including export sales Life and industrial safety equipment - manufacture, sales and service Medical equipment including medical gases, emergency, life-support equipment and supplies.
Top
Security and Protection Industry program
Our security industry professional program delivers broad insurance cover and excellent service at competitive premium terms. Our custom-designed policy wording has been developed to respond to the special needs of the security and protection industry. Cover includes the "failure to perform" risk, which most other carriers just can't offer. We've been handling this class of business for more than 20 years - longer than anyone else. "Your service is security," says Mary MacLaren of our Toronto office. "A faulty signal, improper installation or an interruption in service can jeopardize the very property that your service is expected to protect. That's why you need to buy the very best liability insurance protection you can find, at a premium you can afford." In 2008, our program reaches a wider range of security and protection professionals than ever before, including: Security guards, including armed officers and canine patrols Burglar alarm installers Alarm central stations Sprinkler and fire protection installers Private investigators Locksmiths Call centres Telephone answering and paging services Cellular phone, industrial radio and communication equipment - manufacture, sales and service Security equipment, including CCTV, intercom and access control systems, including export sales Life and industrial safety equipment - manufacture, sales and service Medical equipment, including medical gases, emergency, life-support equipment and supplies.
Top
Private investigators face new tort for wrongful acts
A recent Ontario Court of Appeal verdict has expanded the tort of negligent investigation to permit employees to sue private investigators hired by their employers to probe suspected workplace wrongdoings. The tort was first recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada in 2007 to apply to the police. The new ruling extends it to include private investigators as well. In the case before the court, the plaintiff's employer hired a private investigator to probe suspected theft and drug dealing at its place of business. The investigator's undercover agent identified several people, including the plaintiff, a long-time supervisor who was then mistakenly fired and arrested for theft. Through a series of errors, the 62-year-old plaintiff was confused with another employee with a similar name, who was almost 40 years younger. Eventually the mistake was discovered, but by then the plaintiff claims to have suffered mental distress. A trial court motions judge dismissed the claim against the private investigator, but the appeal court verdict has revived the plaintiff's claim for negligent investigation. You can read this verdict at http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2008/june/2008ONCA 0506.htm.
Top
Security and Protection Industry program
Our security industry professional program delivers broad insurance cover and excellent service at competitive premium terms. Our custom-designed policy wording has been developed to respond to the special needs of the security and protection industry. Cover includes the "failure to perform" risk, which most other carriers just can't offer. We've been handling this class of business for more than 20 years-longer than anyone else in the business. "Your service is security," says Mary MacLaren of our Toronto office. "A faulty signal, improper installation or an interruption in service can jeopardize the very property that your service is expected to protect. That's why you need to buy the very best liability insurance protection you can find, at a premium you can afford." In 2008, our program reaches a wider range of security and protection professionals than ever before, including: Security guards, including armed officers and canine patrols Burglar alarm installers Alarm central stations Sprinkler and fire protection installers Private investigators Locksmiths Call centres Telephone answering and paging services Cellular phone, industrial radio and communication equipment-manufacture, sales and service Security equipment-CCTV, intercom and access control systems, including export sales Life and industrial safety equipment-manufacture, sales and service Medical equipment, including medical gases, emergency, life-support equipment and supplies.
Top
Guard service must pay more than $3-million for school fire
A midnight fire in a Grande-Riviere, Quebec school resulted in a $3,165,000 out-of-court settlement--the largest loss in the history of our program. The November 1984 fire was started by an arsonist who was caught and convicted. However, the property insurers of the school board sued the guard service hired to patrol the premises, to recover the cost of the fire damage. The civil case went to trial in November 1992. The court heard that the overnight security guard had left his post and gone home. The guard's absence meant that there was a lengthy delay before firefighters were called. The court held the security guard solely liable for the fire and awarded the plaintiff $4,268,000 in damages, interest and costs. Our insurer elected to appeal this verdict in Quebec's backlogged appeal court. In early 1997, just before the appeal was to commence, the parties re-opened negotiations and agreed to a compromise settlement. If the appeal court had upheld the lower court award, the total cost, including pre-trial and post-trial interest of the award would have been more than $7 million. Our insurer agreed to pay the plaintiff $3,165,000 on top of the nearly $330,000 paid in legal expenses. The claim was finally settled 12 years and five months after the fire.
Top
Alarm company pays $1-million for disabled siren
A floating log chipper moored near Port Mellon, BC was destroyed by fire in March 1996. Property insurers determined that the fire had been started deliberately, most likely by mischief-makers. They paid out more than $3 million to their policyholder and in turn sued a security company to seek recovery of their losses. The security company had installed intrusion and heat detectors on the barge. They also monitored the alarm system. About two months before the fire, the security company became aware that daily opening and closing signals were not being transmitted, and left several indirect messages to this effect with their client. In the pre-trial hearing, the property insurers argued that the security company had been negligent in permitting the security system to remain disabled. The security company's counsel argued that they had communicated the deficiencies to their client, who had chosen to disregard their warnings. They also argued that even if the alarm had been activated, the local volunteer fire force could not have got to the barge until the fire was considerably advanced. The fire force had no specialised skills or equipment for dealing with a fire of this nature and no suitable marine transport with which to reach the barge. The judge concluded that if the audible siren on the barge had been working, it would likely have been sufficient to drive off the intruder. To avoid the costs of a trial, the parties agreed to settle for just more than $1 million.
Top
Security guard held liable in bank heist
The Quebec Superior Court has ordered Pinkertons of Canada to pay a bank $115,000 after ruling that a security guard was behind a 1988 theft from an automated teller machine in Lachine, Quebec. Justice Mr. Jean Legault criticized Pinkertons for what he said were lax security measures that allowed keys to the branch where the machine was located to go missing.
Top
Security guard set $65,000 fire, but employer must pay
The B.C. Court of Appeal has found a security company vicariously liable for a fire one of its employees deliberately started while guarding a government docking facility in September 1993. The B.C. Ferry Corporation hired Invicta Security Service Corp. to provide security services at its site on Deas Island in Delta, B.C. Invicta employed Mandeep Dosange as a security guard for the graveyard shift at the site. Dosange deliberately started a fire, hoping he could put it out and he acclaimed a hero. Instead, the fire spread and caused $65,000 damage. The appeal court reversed the decision of a lower court by ruling that an employer should be liable for an employee's wrongful conduct where that conduct was one of the normal risks of the employer's enterprise." The court said there were two compelling reasons to characterize the guard's arson as within the course of his employment. First, the arson was facilitated by the special nature of the security business. "The arson in this case was facilitated by the fact that (the guard) was assured, by virtue of his employment, that he could commit his crime undetected and uninterrupted that night," the judge said. Second, the court could see no reason why an employer should be liable for an employee's unintentional negligence, but not for his intentional crimes such as arson. "It would seem odd, then, that (the employer) would be better off for having employed an arsonist than simply a negligent watchman," the judge said. The ruling said the case was "close to the line," but the employer should pay for its employee's arson. Defence counsel Steven Wallace said the decision leaves employers facing absolute liability for an employee's intentional criminal acts. "It all depends on what type of criminal act," he noted. "If it was murder, then it's clearly outside the scope of employment... But if it's something (the judges) think is in the scope of employment, (then the employer is liable). In this case, they think that protecting property is similar enough to destroying property that it fits within the scope of employment."
Top
Security guard to pay $103,000 for wrongful death
The B.C. Court of Appeal has upheld a lower court verdict that ruled a security guard was liable for damages to the family of a man he killed. The guard was stationed at a condominium complex. The plaintiff arrived there in an intoxicated state, looking for his girlfriend. He gained access to a residence, where he assaulted a tenant. When the guard arrived and tried to remove the plaintiff from the suite, the plaintiff attacked him. The guard held the plaintiff in a choke-hold until he passed out. He could not be revived and later died. A lawsuit was commenced on behalf of the plaintiff's two children, aged 11 and 12, for loss of parental guidance and support. The lower court found the guard liable for the wrongful death, and the children were awarded $103,000. The guard chose to appeal the verdict of the lower court. The appeal court verdict in June 1997 dismissed the guard's appeal. The court ruled that the guard had used excessive force against the plaintiff. While the plaintiff had instituted the attack, the force used by the defendant was so excessive that the plaintiff should not share the blame. The court also upheld the awards to the children.
Top
Alarm station settles golf club blaze lawsuit
A hot August 1988 night and telephone line static conspired against a golf club and our client, a Sherbrooke, Quebec alarm station operator. A 2:00 a.m. fire at the golf club near Trois-Rivieres triggered the fire alarm. The alarm sent the correct signal to the central station, but static had plagued the phone lines all night long, setting off spurious signals at the central station, up to 20 times an hour. The young attendant missed the real signal, so he didn't call the fire department. Half an hour later, a neighbour spotted the fire and called out the volunteer fire force. They arrived in less than 10 minutes, hut the fire was already beyond control. The golf club and its insurers sued the alarm company for almost $900,000 in total damages. The suit alleged that the failure to intercept the alarm signal had caused a critical 30-minute delay in dispatching the firefighters. As a result, a partial loss had become a total loss. Fire experts theorized that the dry conditions and lack of water would have caused a serious partial loss even if the alarm response had been almost immediate. Five years later, just before the trial date, insurers for the alarm company agreed to settle for about $271,000 in damages and $56,300 in legal and experts' fees.
Top
Alarm company not liable for jewelry store robbery
A recent Ontario Court of Appeal ruling has upheld the liability limitation clause in a contract between a security company and its jewelry store client. In reversing a lower court's decision, the appeal court found that the clause is enforceable even if the company is negligent in carrying out the contract. The case arose from a March 1988 armed hold-up at the jewelry store. The store owner pressed the hidden alarm button monitored by ADT. A central station employee saw the signal but did nothing for 10 minutes. The jeweler sued ADT to recover the value of goods lost during the robbery on the grounds that the jewelry could have been recovered if ADT had responded promptly. ADT argued that even if they had responded more promptly, the thieves would probably have escaped. They also said that the monitoring agreement limited their liability to the annual service cost, or $890 in this case. The lower court judge found that ADT had breached the contract and that this breach was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's loss. He also ruled that the exclusionary clause in the monitoring agreement was "unreasonable and unconscionable," so was not enforceable. The plaintiff was awarded $50,000. The appeal court upheld the trial judge's finding that ADT had breached the contract. But, reversing the trial judge's decision, the appeal court held that the limitation clause was enforceable, and accordingly reduced the claim from $50,000 to $890. Nine years and five months elapsed between the original hold-up and the appeal court verdict.
Top
Guard service pays $3-million for school fire
A midnight fire in a Grande-Rivière, Quebec school has resulted in a $3,165,000 out-of-court settlement&emdash;the largest settlement in the history of our program. The November 1984 fire was started by an arsonist who was caught and convicted. However, the property insurers of the school board sued our clients&emdash;the guard service hired to patrol the premises&emdash;to recover the cost of the fire damage. The civil case went to trial in November 1992. The court heard that the overnight security guard had left his post and gone home. The guard's absence meant there was a lengthy delay before firefighters were called. The court held the security guard solely liable for the fire and awarded the plaintiff $4,268,000 in damages, interest and costs. Our insurer elected to appeal this verdict in Quebec's backlogged appeal court. In early 1997, just before the appeal was to commence, the parties re-opened negotiations and agreed to a compromise settlement. If the appeal court had upheld the lower court award, the total cost, including pre-trial and post-trial interest, would have been more than $7 million. Our insurer agreed to pay the plaintiff $3,165,000 on top of the nearly $330,000 paid in legal expenses. The claim was settled 12 years and five months after the fire.
Top