Bigby v Kondra

The case of Bigby v Kondra involved a dispute between the plaintiffs, who suffered damage to their house, and the defendants, who were a builder and an insurance company. The plaintiffs claimed that the damage to their house was caused by the builder's failure to properly supervise the installation of windows by a third-party contractor, which led to the windows not being adequately secured for weather conditions, resulting in internal pressure and subsequent damage to the house. The plaintiffs also sought indemnity from the insurance company, which held a policy of insurance with the builder. The legal issues before the court were whether the builder failed to adequately supervise the construction of the house, and whether the insurance company was liable to indemnify the builder for the damage caused to the plaintiffs' house.

The court found that the builder had a contractual duty to supervise the construction of the house, but this duty could be satisfied by reasonable reliance on the third-party contractor. The court held that the builder had exercised reasonable care in supervising the construction of the house, and had reasonably relied on the third-party contractor to properly install the windows. The court further held that the damage to the plaintiffs' house was not an "occurrence" in connection with the builder's business, and therefore not covered by the insurance policy held by the insurance company. The court found that the plaintiffs had failed to establish that the failure of a particular window was a material cause of the damage to the house, and that the damage was the result of the simultaneous operation of multiple causes, each of which was sufficient to cause the damage.

The court found in favour of the builder and the insurance company, and dismissed the plaintiffs' claims. The court ordered that judgment be entered in favour of the plaintiffs against the builder in the sum of $1,822,490.43 (inclusive of interest to date), but that the insurance company was not liable to indemnify the builder for its liability to the plaintiffs. The court further ordered that the parties would be heard as to costs.