skip to main content
Back to Top


May 17, 2018

Hughes Amys' Alex Reyes' Lawyer's Daily article: Post-loss settlement bars insurer’s subrogated action

Author Michael S. Teitelbaum

Please find pasted below my colleague, Alex Reyes' excellent article on the ONCA decision of Destaron Property Management v. Hindmarsh, which was just published in The Lawyer's Daily.

Congratulations and Well Done, Alex!

Please note that this article originally appeared on The Lawyer's Daily website published by LexisNexis Canada Inc.


Post-loss settlement bars insurer’s subrogated action

By Alex Reyes

(May 17, 2018, 8:35 AM EDT) -- 

In insurance law, subrogation refers to an insurer’s right to sue the party responsible for causing a loss to an insured in order to recover money paid out to its insured to satisfy a claim. Since a subrogating insurer is limited to enforcing only such rights its insured has against the party that caused the loss, problems can arise when an insured settles its uninsured losses with the tortfeasor and provides a general release of liability. In such circumstances, is the insured’s post-loss settlement effective to preclude the insurer’s subrogated action?

This issue was recently addressed by the Ontario Court of Appeal in Destaron Property Management et al. v. Hindmarsh, 2018 ONCA 200, a decision about which subrogating insurers and insurance counsel should be aware.

In Destaron, Robert Hindmarsh was a tenant in a residential apartment building owned by 1260 Marlborough Court Holdings Ltd. and managed by Destaron Property Management Ltd. (DPM). A fire broke out in Hindmarsh’s unit that resulted in damage to his unit and other units and common areas in the building. The fire marshal concluded that the fire originated from gasoline in the bathtub of Hindmarsh’s unit.

Shortly after the fire, DPM delivered a letter to Hindmarsh suggesting he was responsible for the fire. In the letter, DPM indicated that it intended to file applications with the Landlord and Tenant Board to evict Hindmarsh from the unit and to pursue him for damages caused to the building. However, the letter went on to suggest that as “an alternative to legal proceedings [DPM] would normally pursue”, Hindmarsh agree in writing to terminate his tenancy. According to the letter, if Hindmarsh agreed to terminate his tenancy, DPM would not evict him, no further “charges” would be sought, and “damages would be dealt with between the insurance companies”. After receiving the letter, Hindmarsh executed an agreement to terminate his tenancy and vacated his unit.

Two years later, DPM and 1260 Marlborough Court, on behalf of their insurer, brought an action against Hindmarsh alleging that the fire was caused by his negligence and seeking damages of $300,000. Hindmarsh brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action on the basis that DPM’s letter formed part of a settlement agreement between the plaintiffs and him and constituted a release from liability for the fire. The plaintiffs, on the other hand, argued that the letter was not a release or, alternatively, that it was a limited release that did not preclude a subrogated action by the plaintiffs’ insurer.

The motion judge found in favour of Hindmarsh, finding that DPM’s letter operated as a release from liability as it was a promise by DPM to forego a claim for damages in exchange for Hindmarsh agreeing to terminate his tenancy (Destaron Property Management v. Hindmarsh, 2017 ONSC 4444). The motion judge also rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that DPM’s release of liability was a limited release that preserved the insurer’s subrogated rights.

The motion judge noted that DPM’s letter did not expressly refer to any insurer retaining the right to sue Hindmarsh. While the plaintiffs may have had a subjective intention to preserve their insurer’s subrogated rights or to retain a right to recover from Hindmarsh’s insurer, this could not overcome the plain and ordinary meaning of the words used in DPM’s letter. The motion judge therefore granted summary judgment and dismissed the plaintiffs’ action.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal, in brief reasons, upheld the motion judge’s dismissal of the action. The Court found that the motion judge’s conclusion that DPM’s letter amounted to a release of Hindmarsh was not unreasonable. In regards to the plaintiffs’ argument that the reference in the letter to “damages [being] dealt with between the insurance companies” indicated an intention to preserve the subrogated rights of the plaintiffs’ insurer against Hindmarsh’s insurer, the Court held that “the problem [with that argument] is that by releasing the tenant, the effect was to preclude any such claim”.

Before Destaron, the most recent decision by an Ontario court on the issue of whether an insured’s post-loss settlement precludes an insurer’s subrogated action is the decision in Busgos v. Khamis, [1990] O.J. No. 179, which resulted in a much different outcome. In Busgos, similar to Destaron, the action involved a fire on leased premises allegedly caused by the tenant’s negligence. Following the fire, the landlord and tenant came to a settlement regarding the loss and the landlord provided the tenant with a general release from liability. The landlord’s insurer brought a subrogated action against the tenant and the tenant defended on the basis that the action was barred on account of the release.

Unlike Destaron, however, the court in Busgos did not dismiss the insurer’s subrogated action. In Busgos, the court noted that before the landlord and tenant entered into the settlement, the tenant had notice that the landlord’s insurer intended to pursue a subrogated claim. According to the court, if a tortfeasor has notice that an insurer has been subrogated to the claim of the insured, a release given by the insured in favour of the tortfeasor is ineffective against the insurer.

We note that the Busgos decision is not referred to in either the motion judge’s or the Court of Appeal’s reasons in Destaron. Moreover, the issue of whether Hindmarsh (or his insurer) had prior notice of the insurer’s subrogated interest or an intention to pursue it is not mentioned. Courts in other Canadian jurisdictions have declined to follow Busgos (see, for example, B.H. Shopping Centre Ltd. v. Marrazzo, [1993] A.J. No. 781), noting that since the relevant equitable and contractual relationships are between the insurer and the insured, not the insurer and the third party tortfeasor, the appropriate remedy for the insurer in the circumstances should be against the insured and not the third party.

Some legal commentators have also argued that the outcome in Busgos appears to rest on questionable authorities and, moreover, is difficult to reconcile with the view, at common law, that until the insured is completely indemnified, the insured controls any claim against third parties and may settle or release it as long as the settlement is made in good faith.

Given that the Court of Appeal did not address the issue of notice in Destaron, it potentially remains an open question whether prior notice given to a tortfeasor of an insurer’s subrogated interest will render a release provided by an insured ineffective against the insurer. As a result, subrogating insurers, in addition to putting third party tortfeasors on notice of a potential subrogated claim, would be well advised to also notify their insureds, as soon as practicable, of their obligations under the policy to protect the insurer’s subrogated interest and to refrain from entering into any settlements or disposing of any claims that may prejudice the insurer’s subrogated rights.

Alex Reyes is an associate at Hughes Amys LLP. He has a broad insurance defence practice encompassing personal injury, professional negligence and property damage claims. He can be reached at

Photo credit / SergeyToronto ISTOCKPHOTO.COM   

© 2018, The Lawyer's Daily. All rights reserved.


  • Settlement and Release Issues
  • subrogation
  • subrogated claim

Related Team

Related Services:

Related BLAWGS


Hughes Amys' Jennifer Huneault comments on insurance issues relating to legalized home-grown recreational cannabis

Please find pasted below a CBC News post discussing the insurance and other implications of growing recreational cannabis at home which features insightful comments by my partner, Jennifer Huneault.   Well Done, Jennifer!   Regular reade......


Hughes Amys' Sabina Arulampalam to co-chair Ontario SABS Update

As can be seen from the Ontario Bar Association Continuing Professional Development program announcement, pasted below, our very own Sabina Arulampalam, will be co-chairing an Accident Benefits Update on March 20th 2018. Well Done, Sabina!  ......


Hughes Amys' Jennifer Huneault quoted in two Canadian Underwriter posts on marijuana legalization and insurance issues

Please find pasted below two Canadian Underwriter posts dealing with marijuana legalization in which our very own Jennifer Huneault has provided insights into how the upcoming changes may affect automobile, property and liability coverages, and th......

The BLAWG on this website and the material published on it, including the links to other websites, are made available by the lawyer and law firm publisher for educational purposes only as well as to give the BLAWG's readers general information and a general understanding of the law, and not to provide specific legal advice. This BLAWG is for general informational purposes only, and use of this BLAWG does not create a Lawyer-Client Relationship. Hughes Amys LLP is a law firm and most of the information on the BLAWG relates to legal topics and cases. Hughes Amys LLP does not offer or dispense legal advice through this BLAWG or by e-mails directed to or from this site. By using the BLAWG, the reader agrees that the information on this BLAWG does not constitute legal or other professional advice and no lawyer-client or other relationship is created between the reader and Hughes Amys LLP or its lawyers. The BLAWG is not a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a qualified lawyer. The information on the BLAWG may be changed without notice and is not guaranteed to be complete, correct or up-to-date. While the BLAWG is revised on a regular basis, it may not reflect the most current legal developments. Any comments, views or opinions expressed at or through the BLAWG are intended to provide general commentary on the law and legal issues, and are not intended for or should be understood as being posted for any other purpose. The BLAWG should not be used as a substitute for securing appropriate legal advice from a licensed professional lawyer in respect of particular facts and circumstances. Please use your own good judgment before choosing to act on any information included in the BLAWG, doing so entirely at your own risk.
  • Canadian Lawyer - Top 10 Boutique 2017-18
  • The ARC Group
  • Best Lawyers 2017
  • Canadian Legal Lexpert Directory 2016

© 201​6-17 All rights reserved | Legal Disclaimer | Privacy Policy | Accessibility