Claim alleging negligence of both municipality and hockey organization —Municipality having insurance coverage under its own policy and as an additional insured to the hockey organization’s policy — How should the standard additional insurance clause “arising out of the operations of the named insured” be interpreted? — What is the proper interpretation of a common excess insurance clause? — How does equitable contribution apply in the additional insured context? — At what point in a legal proceeding should duty to defend issues be decided? — When does an insurer lose its presumptive right to direct litigation? — dismissed 12/03/2020 — Supreme Advocacy acted as agent for the Applicant.

Read the lower court decision from the ONCA here.