The appellant relies on Derksen v. 539938 Ontario Ltd., 2001 SCC 72, [2001] 3 S.C.R. 398, as authority for the proposition that an exclusion can be worded so as to apply to a loss with multiple causes if only one of the causes is contemplated by the exclusion. The appellant asserts that, to the extent that the loss was caused in part by the tenant’s conduct (not contemplated by the mechanical exclusion) and in part by the failure of the furnace’s ignition (contemplated by the mechanical exclusion), the mechanical exclusion ought to apply to the entirety of the loss, and coverage ought to be excluded.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.