Canadian Underwriter

Category: Claims

How insurers can face real-world climate risks

It wasn’t your imagination, 2024 really was a climate risk turning point for insurers and reinsurers in Canada, panellists tell a session on global climate resilience at Insurance Bureau of Canada’s recent 2026 IBC InSight Summit.

“It kind of consolidated and brought to the forefront something that was happening over the years. And a lot of companies…were talking about this for many decades,” says Agis Kitsikis, market head for property and casualty reinsurance at Swiss Re. That ‘something’ is a trend toward multibillion dollar insured losses in Canada spurred by natural catastrophe (NatCat) events.

“This trend became really apparent in 2024,” he says. “Another key element to this is the ratio between losses that are climate related versus the peak risk of earthquake, given that we’re in Canada. [For] these secondary perils…the ratio of the contribution to this entire pool of loss moved from close to 30% in the first decade [of the 21^st Century] to 50% to 55% [in the] second decade, and now we’re close to 70%, 90% of losses coming from secondary peril.”

Risk on the ground

Bringing a client’s perspective to the discussion, Shashanka Suresh, director of sustainability and ESG at real estate developer Dream, says it’s getting harder for property developers and owners to ignore climate risk.

“In the Canadian context, the wildfires out West [have] been a little bit of a wake-up call. And even here in Toronto, wildfires in the northern part of the province have resulted in…smoky skies. That’s not something that we can ignore anymore,” he tells the conference.

“We are thinking about the value of our assets, but also the comfort of our tenants, because that becomes an important consideration for us….We’re sort of at an inflection point where climate risk is being talked about in different spheres.”

Commercial real estate firms have a close eye on how climate shifts will impact the value of certain properties, and how natural hazards directly impact real assets.

“But there’s some softer pieces that are [less tangible],” Suresh adds. “When Toronto had the extreme heat wave last summer, there were some stories of tenants legally going after their landlords because the [heating, ventilation and air conditioning] systems were not efficient enough to service them as tenants. And that’s a legal risk, that’s a reputational risk that we as real estate owners and operators need to be thinking about as an industry.”

In terms of planning, he says historical data is no longer adequate to determine risks to assets in various geographic regions.

“We’re now looking at probabilistic models, thinking through those different future scenarios [and] also looking at different time horizons,” Suresh says. “And the time horizons piece is interesting for real estate, because it can really help you strategize about your acquisitions and dispositions.”

Changing times

Looking at emerging data, Kitsikis says the key thing from an insurance and a reinsurance perspective is the underlying exposure. He notes companies’ concentration of exposure in NatCat-prone areas and economic drivers like inflation are combining to create significant cost issues.

“Forget about climate change,” he says. “If you have the same event happen today [that happened] 15 years ago, it would cost a lot more. And if you add the climate impact…it just amplifies that reality.”

Suresh says he’s seen risk amplification firsthand when visiting buildings that were constructed to building codes in place 20 or 30 years ago. Today, they cannot withstand weather patterns that have emerged in certain regions.

“When [one building I looked at] was built up to code about 23 years ago, it was taking into consideration the precipitation patterns at the time, and even after two or three extreme rainfall events, we are noticing now that…the drainage systems are not effective enough to drain all the additional water that’s now being collected on the roofs, and even this water in front of the building,” he tells the conference.

“We need to think about how climate risks are evolving [and] the pace at which they’re evolving.”

May 20, 2026
Insurers reveal more detail about their proposed quake backstop

Canadian property and casualty insurers are proposing a private-public earthquake backstop along the lines of the terrorism insurance backstop currently employed in the United States, the Insurance Bureau of Canada confirmed Tuesday.

“The industry’s proposed solution is known as the Canadian Earthquake Risk Protection Act (CERPA), and is modelled on the U.S. Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA),” IBC says in a paper published on the insurer association’s website. “TRIA has supported stability in the U.S. terrorism insurance market for more than two decades, by establishing a clear framework for sharing extreme tail risk between the government and the insurance industry.

“Although terrorism and earthquakes present different risk characteristics and market dynamics, TRIA demonstrates how a transparent, rules-based mechanism can reduce systemic risk and prevent market contagion after a catastrophic event. CERPA draws inspiration from these structural principles, while being tailored to the unique characteristics of earthquake risk in Canada.”

CERPA, like TRIA, “is designed to operate on a long-term, cost-neutral basis with no upfront public expenditure, while reinforcing insurer responsibility and preserving appropriate market incentives,” IBC says in a piece authored by Mahan Azimi, the association’s director of catastrophic and emerging risk policy team, and Christina Friend-Johnston, a communications manager at IBC.

Specifically, as in TRIA, taxpayers would be reimbursed for the government’s costs over the long term “by requiring the industry to repay any federal support through a temporary post-event premium surcharge, ensuring no upfront cost to taxpayers or consumers at the outset,” as IBC explains.

In the United States, if a terrorist attack is officially “certified” and industry-wide insured losses exceed the TRIA backstop’s trigger (currently $200 million), the US government reimburses part of insurers’ losses above their deductibles. The US government currently covers 80% of eligible losses above trigger thresholds, while insurers retain 20%. The US government recovers its outlay under a post-event premium surcharge paid by the US P&C industry.

Previously, CU reported information about the model published by the Property and Casualty Insurance Compensation Corporation. In its quarterly newsletter, Solvency Matters, PACICC CEO Alister Campbell says modelling for setting the proper ‘trigger’ would be critical.

“To the extent that any successful design will need to allow insurers ‘to fail’ (as antidote for ‘moral hazard’), there will also need to be accurate modelling to estimate how much failure the system can ‘afford,’” Campbell writes. “It seems very possible that the PACICC Systemic Risk Model (encompassing both federal and provincial insurers) will prove to be invaluable in supporting this modelling work.”

IBC says it’s 30% likely that Canada will see a Magnitude-8 or greater earthquake (“the Big One”) striking in Vancouver within the next 50 years. Plus, Montreal lies within Quebec’s most active seismic zone, which has experienced past earthquakes including a Magnitude-5.8 earthquake in 1732.

IBC cites a damage estimate suggesting a major earthquake in Canada could cause $52.6 billion in catastrophic damage. That’s 11 times greater than Canada’s current record-holding disaster, the 2016 wildfire that burned through Fort McMurray in Alberta.

Also in the news: Is insurance facing its Napster moment?

In previous reports, PACICC has said a damage loss exceeding $35 billion could create a “tipping point” after which multiple P&C insurers could fail.

To put that in perspective, MSA Research says Canada’s P&C insurance industry currently has approximately $66 billion in capital. That breaks down into $23.2 billion of minimum required capital, plus about $42.8 billion in excess capital.

“It’s important not to interpret the full $66 billion as capital available to absorb a single event,” MSA Research CEO Nevina Kishun tells CU. “The majority of this capital is already supporting ongoing risks across all lines of business, and insurers are required to maintain the minimum capital level.

“In practice, the [roughly] $43 billion of excess capital is the closer proxy for loss-absorbing capacity — but even that is not fully deployable without regulatory and market consequences.”

The industry has been calling for an earthquake backstop to prevent P&C insurance company failures for longer than a decade. In its 2025 budget, the federal government included a promise to consult with the industry on a quake backstop. Currently, the industry is calling for federally and provincially licensed insurers to be included in the discussion.

“Canada is the only G7 country with a significant earthquake risk that lacks a formal government-backed financial backstop for earthquake,” says Liam McGuinty, IBC’s vice president of federal affairs at the time the federal government released its budget. “Without a federal backstop, a major quake could trigger widespread financial instability.”

May 19, 2026
Where auto thefts are highest in Ontario

It’s likely no surprise Toronto, Brampton and Mississauga continue to hold the titles for Ontario’s Top 3 cities for car theft claims in a new ranking from Insurance Bureau of Canada (IBC).

Their report uses final full-year claims costs dollar figures for 2025 (as well as data from a 2017 report) compiled by the General Insurance Statistical Agency.

Toronto racked up $114.5 million in auto theft claims costs in 2025, a 253% increase from IBC’s 2017 report of over $32.4 million in claims costs. Runner-up Brampton accumulated $43.2 million in claims costs, which is far smaller that Toronto but is also 565% higher than the nearly $6.5 million in claims seen in the 2017 survey.

The slowest rate of increase within the Top 3 is Mississauga, which posted $31.5 million in claims costs, 216% above $9.9 million in 2017.

Rounding out the Top 5, Ottawa shifts up from sixth to fourth place, with $19.8 million in claims, up 363% from just under $4.3 million in 2017. And Hamilton jumps four spots to fifth place with $19.4 million in claims costs. That’s 221% ahead of $6 million in 2017.

Related: Two years later: Auto theft after the national summit

Province-wide auto theft claims costs were $485 million in 2025. That’s down from $723 million in 2024, but losses are still 330% above 2017’s report.

Of the remaining Top 10 Ontario cities, four are within the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) orbit. Markham saw theft claims climb 642% from $2.4 million in 2017 to $17.8 million in 2025. Meanwhile, Vaughan jumped 371% from $3.6 million in 2017 to $17.1 million last year, while London rose 250% to nearly $11.7 million, and Richmond hill soared 700% to $8.1 million.

IBC is pleased with efforts from municipal governments, law enforcement and insurers to curb auto theft, says Amanda Dean, vice president for Ontario and Atlantic, but stresses there is more work to be done. “Ending auto theft requires a sustained, coordinated and whole‑of‑society approach,” she says in the report.

IBC and other insurance groups are advocating for finalization of the proposed amendments to Canada’s Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. They include replacing outdated vehicle immobilization standards and making improvements to Canada’s vehicle export system to prevent stolen vehicles from leaving the country.

Related: Recovery | Injury claims will reveal limitations of Ontario auto reforms

Although auto thefts remain concentrated in larger cities, claims costs are rising in smaller communities.

Looking at large percentage rate increases in Ontario, Bowmanville-Clarington experienced a 1,261% jump to $2.7 million between 2017 and 2025, Whitchurch-Stouffville saw a 1,014% rise to nearly $1.8 million, and Peterborough saw a 987% theft claims increase to $2.4 million.

Richmond Hill (with a 700% rise to over $8.1 million in 2025) was one of only three smaller cities (all in the GTA) to record auto theft claims exceeding $1 million in the 2017 report. And Barrie, just under $1 million in 2017 posted a 679% rise to $7.1 million in claims.

Rounding out the Top 10 for auto claims cost growth in smaller cities, Whitby climbed 667% to almost $5.6 million, Oakville rose 659% to $12.7 million, Pickering jumped 644% to $4.8 million, Markham was up 742% to $17.8 million, and Milton rose 621% to $6 million.

May 19, 2026
What U.S. budget cuts mean for NatCat forecasts

Deep cuts to U.S. government funding for climate research and forecasting by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and other agencies will impact catastrophe modelling going forward, Daniel Raizman, global head of client engagement, Climate Risk Advisory at Aon, tells attendees at Insurance Bureau of Canada’s recent 2026 IBC InSight Summit.

“I get asked this question all the time,” he says in response to an audience question. And the short answer is, “Yes.”

Since January 2025, insurers have been framing their messaging around impacts of climate data defunding in terms of how brokers and insurers rely on the data, he says. And this narrative addresses the importance of those data sets to banking and industries that drive key economic sectors.

“We’re notably facing a big setback in terms of research [organization] and potential threat of this data [disappearing], but we’re trying to come at it from a business perspective and say, ‘Hey, we personally rely on this data every day. This is how risk is transacted day-to-day across the insurance and reinsurance industry,’” he tells the audience. “We really care about the preservation of this data.”

Raizman adds the data creates significant value in catastrophe risk management, even without application of a climate lens.

“I would say, 90% of the work I do and the questions I get asked are around, ‘What’s my flood risk today? What’s it look like tomorrow?’” he says, adding clients are less likely to ask what 2050 will look like.

“And I think we have a challenge in managing that as well, because…the language of certain climate modeling is often mid-century, end-of-century. But the reality is that most people care about, ‘What does the next five years look like? What do I face today? How did I get yesterday wrong and [how can we] be better tomorrow?’”

Related: Environmental risks take backseat on list of business leaders’ concerns — in the short term

Much of the conference session’s main portion addressed Canada’s protection gap between what’s covered and what could or should be covered by policies. Panellists spoke to risks around wildfires and flooding that have exposed gaps for Canadian insurers and insureds, as well as inflation’s impact on restoration and replacement costs when customers have claims.

That sparked an audience question on the viability of a future public policy role in closing that gap.

There is work underway with the federal government on building a public-private partnership to help address that gap, notes Ravi Mahabir, vice president of climate at Intact Financial Corporation.

He says such public-private partnerships exist in other jurisdictions, including France and the U.K.

“There are many different constructs that have been deployed in terms of those public-private partnerships to address protection gaps. There are lots of lessons. That’s a good thing,” he tells the summit.

“Public policy is important; a blend of public and private partnership in deploying insurance mechanisms to provide affordable insurance to those high-risk areas. And that should really be a time-bound offering, in that those public private partnerships should really facilitate not just an insurance solution but also risk mitigation, such that those partnerships have phased out period over time.”

There also are misunderstandings within the general public around why insurers might need to reduce coverage or pull out of specific areas where risks are too high, adds Raizman.

“We often get in a blame game…when there’s lack of understanding around the risk that they face, and in realizing that these are businesses at the end of the day.”

May 14, 2026
Where Definity is seeing gains from the Travelers integration
Definity Financial Corporation posted $36 million in run-rate expense synergies linked to integration of Travelers Canada business into its operations during 2026 Q1, according to management’s discussion and analysis (MD&A) included in its quarterly regulatory filings.

(Run-rate expense calculations determine a company’s operating costs on an annualized basis by extrapolating short-term spending, quarterly in this case, over a full year.)

Provided the first-quarter trend holds, that means Definity is “in position to achieve run-rate expense synergies of at least $100 million (pre-tax) within 36 months of close,” according to the company’s MD&A.

“We now expect to realize approximately one-third of our $100 million target in the first 12 months, and the remainder over the subsequent 24 months,” the filing adds.

Related: Definity Q1 earnings show Travelers integration producing results

Three main sources for synergies identified by the company include:

technology platform consolidation, as acquired personal and commercial volumes migrate onto Definity’s platforms

elimination of service charges from Travelers’ U.S. parent company

“operational efficiencies driven by elimination of duplicative and administrative activities and the benefits of scale.”

During a May 8 earnings call with investment industry analysts, Definity president and CEO Rowan Saunders notes: “While these initial savings are largely from the elimination of U.S. parent company service charges and proactive attrition management, the next phase of synergies will be driven by technology platform consolidation and operational efficiencies as the integration progresses.”

He adds discipline around costs to achieve those savings are equally important.

“To date, we have incurred approximately $93 million in acquisition costs and recorded $44 million of integration-specific expenses, keeping us firmly on track with our total estimate,” Saunders says, adding the careful execution shows up on the company’s balance sheet.

“Our debt-to-capital ratio is already down to 26.8%, approaching our long-term target of 25%, well ahead of our 24-month guidance. Even after funding this major acquisition, our total financial capacity remains robust at more than $1.1 billion, putting us in an enviable position to fund future organic growth and deliver on our capital priorities.”

Business priorities

One goal emphasized during the earning call is retention of the acquired Travelers Canada business.

“If you just look at the total growth in the first quarter of 35.4% to $1.4 billion overall…we’d say about 80% of that growth is coming through the acquired business in the first quarter,” chief financial officer Philip Mather tells the earnings call in response to a question on breakdown of the 2026 Q1 earnings growth. “Now, attribution to that gets less simple as time goes on, because with the pace of integration, we’ve already unified the new business offering. Trying to split that between the acquired operations versus the underlying run rate activity gets more complex as you go.

“That said, if you take the 35.4% and you…simply isolate out the impact of the retained premiums that we acquired through the deal, the split for that is just over 27% [and] is coming from the retention of the acquired premiums in the quarter. Just over 8% is coming from the underlying organic growth of the business, combined with the Travelers new business contribution in that quarter.”

For context, he adds, that 27% from the acquired business represents a roughly 82% retention rate for that block of business. “That’s already within just a couple of points of our company-wide retention rate,” Mather adds.

Investment income and capital growth

Another plus from the Travelers acquisition was a 60% growth in net investment income to $79.9 million during the quarter, Mather tells the earnings call. He notes the change was “driven primarily by the large asset base from the acquisition,” along with the company’s repositioning as fixed-income yields increased.

“Given this strong performance on our view of the current yield environment, we now expect our net investment income for the full year 2026 will be approximately $320 million,” he adds.

“Our broker distribution platform operating income grew by nearly 25%, driven by strong policy growth and favorable contingent profit commissions earned on a high-quality portfolio.”

And, in response to an analyst question about Definity’s financial capacity of $1.15 billion following the close of the Travelers Canada transaction being “higher than we would have expected,” Saunders replies the company is “very happy” with the outcome.

“Our experience is that this would not put us on the sideline for other opportunities that come by…,” he tells the earnings call. “We’re happy to keep building up some of that capital because our conviction is that there will continue to be M&A opportunities in the Canadian marketplace over the next couple of years.”
May 13, 2026
2026 Q1 Cat updates: When less is more

Flood watches, warnings, and outlooks remain in place across Ontario as the spring thaw continues. However, based on national 2026 Q1 results, natural catastrophe (NatCat) claim numbers are down.

“Only two Cats have been declared this year,” says Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction managing director Glenn McGillivray, “both small.”

Although the first quarter is generally pretty quiet for NatCats in Canada, even a slight drop is still good news. NatCat losses dropped in 2025 to around $2.4 billion after an historic $9.4 billion dollar high in 2024. Last year, however, still clocked in as the tenth most expensive year on record. In fact, according to CatIQ, 2025 losses ranked second overall in terms of catastrophes declared and in ice storm losses. The year also topped the list in declared fire catastrophes.

Q1 insights and outcomes

“Comparing Q1 this year to Q1 2025, the losses are 15% of last year,” says Laura Twidle, CEO at CatIQ. Twidle notes that while the first quarter of 2026 did bring a few thousand claims around common seasonal snow, freeze, thaw, and melt events, there were still fewer year-over-year NatCat events and claims.

Also in the news: Brokers’ next big E&O risk

Intact Financial Corporation, parent company of Canada’s largest carrier, referred to 2026 Q1 Cat activity as “benign.” Executives on the company’s 2026 Q1 earnings call told investors first-quarter Cat losses were $141 million, driven primarily by winter storms and large property losses in the UK. Overall, including the company’s US and UK operations, Intact expects $1.2 billion of annual catastrophe losses in 2026, with about one-third of that expected in the second and third quarters.

Adjusters make similar observations.

“Overall activity has been relatively moderate so far this season,” says Christine Segaric, director of Cat response for ClaimsPro. Segaric says volumes are tracking slightly below last year and ClaimsPro has not seen a meaningful increase in claims related to recent weather events. “That said, it’s still early in the season, and we will continue to monitor conditions closely.”

McGillivray points out that the four record events in 2024 all happened within about six weeks and totally changed the complexion of the year in a very short time. As a case in point, he cites the Fort McMurray wildfire with $4 billion in insured loss. There is, he notes, also no final data in terms of the recent events in Northern Ontario. “It will take time to see how those events shake out.”

Melt events in Q2

Twidle notes the snow, freeze, thaw, and melt events so far this year are in similar locations witnessed at the same time last year. “We typically see [them] in Ontario and Quebec each winter,” she says. A spike in warm temperatures in late April drove a rapid thaw and elevated water levels at the start of Q2.

An Ottawa River rising led some residents in Gatineau, Quebec, to voluntarily evacuate last month, for example. At least 200 buildings flooded and a few hundred more were at risk. Quebec City also saw several road closures due to heavy rainfall.

Conversely, though since lifted, states of emergency were declared across parts of Northern Ontario during that same time. Ontario’s Flood Forecasting and Warning Program highlights the 19 districts impacted. As of May 7, only a few of those districts remained under flood warnings, including the Lake Nipissing Shoreline and some of its surrounding areas.

Based on declining water levels and projection data, Greater Sudbury lifted its State of Emergency on May 1 and moved into its recovery phase. The municipality’s Flood Waste Relief Program has also been initiated “to help support residential property owners affected by flooding who do not have flood insurance.”

While the industry awaits the claims numbers and claims costs associated with these events, Q1 results are still worth noting. Yes, the year can change in what McGillivray calls “the snap of a finger,” but for now, the industry can enjoy this seasonal win.

May 13, 2026
Will your clients bother to prevent NatCat damage?
Two new surveys show Canadians – despite saying they’re aware of natural catastrophe (NatCat) risks – aren’t taking necessary steps to prevent damage to their homes or automobiles.

For many, cost is a primary barrier, says Desjardins Insurance research, which finds affordability is a primary barrier to clients making renovations that would protect their homes or vehicles.

“Two-thirds of respondents cite cost as the primary reason they haven’t upgraded their home,” the insurer says. “But nearly half would be willing to invest between $1,000 and $5,000 to protect their home from severe weather.”

Related: As NatCats slow to a dull roar, brokers turn their attention to other concerns

Further, among insured Canadians surveyed, nearly 70% say severe weather could damage their homes, and 80% say their vehicles are at risk.

But just 34% of those same people say they’ve made improvements to protect their homes, and only 38% say they’re likely to do so within the next five years.

Desjardins’ survey of roughly 4,000 Canadians also finds more than half of respondents aren’t aware of government incentives and programs to help fund climate-ready home improvements. These include both federal and municipal flood protection subsidies.

Related: The hidden, truer cost of NatCats in Canada

“That data point is significant, because 82% of respondents say financial incentives would make a difference when they’re deciding whether to protect their homes,” Desjardins says in a press release. “It points to a real need for practical and accessible guidance on prevention that can help Canadians become more proactive.”

There are also some regional differences. While just 34% or respondents nationwide say they’ve taken steps to protect their homes and vehicles from NatCat damage, insureds in Atlantic Canada are the most concerned and best prepared – at around 40%

Wildfire complacency

A second survey, commissioned by Intact, finds 61% of Canadians say they’re either ‘not very’ or ‘not at all’ concerned about wildfires.

That’s surprising given roughly 60% of Canadian communities sit on what climate researchers call the ‘urban-wildland interface’ where developed areas border on forests and grasslands, where wildfires are frequent.

Related: Jasper wildfire rebuild: Challenges persist for local businesses

“Once concentrated in western provinces and territories, wildfires are now increasingly reaching regions across the country that were not traditionally at risk,” the insurer says in a press release. “According to the Canadian Interagency Forest Fire Centre…the amount of land burned across Canada has surged by 81% over the previous decade.”

The survey also finds people who’ve had property damaged by wildfire are more likely to take preventative measures. But it also notes 69% of respondents say they haven’t ‘felt the need to take action.’

Related: The easiest way to save your client’s home from wildfire

In addition to often-cited preventative measures, like removing debris from eavestroughs, moving combustible materials away from buildings, upgrading roofing and siding, and pruning or removing certain trees, the release lists some less-discussed fireproofing upgrades. These include:

Retrofitting deck components to fire-rated materials that do not gap between boards.

Creating a 15 cm non-combustible gap between the ground and house siding, and using non-combustible fencing

Installing 3 mm non-combustible screens on all external vents (except dryer vents)

Installing multi-pane or tempered-glass windows and exterior fire-rated doors
May 12, 2026
A homeowners’ dog bites the dog-walker. A liability riddle: Who owns the dog?

A dog-walker bit by a dog in her care was the “owner” of that dog at the time of the attack under the Dog Owners’ Liability Act (DOLA) and therefore can’t claim $1 million in liability against the dog’s true owners, the Ontario Court of Appeal has found.

The case highlights nuances in how insurance covers liability associated with dog-walking.

Michael and Amanda Luciano hired a dog-walking company to look after their two dogs, a large male boxer named Forrest Gump and Benny.

Amanda Nigro, who worked part-time at the dog-walking company, began walking Forrest in November 2021. She looked after the dogs at the Lucianos’ house about three times a week and had a key to the house.

Forrest developed an infection in his foot in February 2022. The vet advised the Lucianos that Forrest was not to come into contact with mud or anything that could cause infection. It was recommended that Forrest wear rubber booties when walking in wet areas.

Nigro attended the Lucianos’ residence to look after the dogs on Mar. 24, 2022. Alone in the home, she let the second dog, Benny, outside to use the washroom, and Forrest refused to go. A bit later that morning, Nigro wanted to let Forrest out in the backyard; since mud and snow covered the backyard, she decided to put booties on Forrest before letting him out. It was the first time she tried to put booties on Forrest.

As she approached Forrest with the booties in one hand, the dog lunged at her, bit into her left arm and started shaking it. After she got her arm loose, Forrest continued to attack her, biting various parts of her body. Nigro suffered injuries to her abdomen, left upper thigh, and both arms.

There was no history of aggressive behaviour by Forrest in Nigro’s presence or otherwise.

Nigro sued the Lucianos for general damages of $350,000 and special damages of $650,000, for a total of $1 million.

The Ontario Superior court dismissed her claim, finding that Nigro possessed or harboured the dog at the time of the attack. The DOLA defines “owner” in s. 1(1) of the Act as follows: “’owner,’ when used in relation to a dog, includes a person who possesses or harbours the dog and, where the owner is a minor, the person responsible for the custody of the minor.”

Nigro appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal, which upheld the finding in the lower court.

Also in the news: Canadian insurtech launches insurance shopping app within ChatGPT

“There can be no doubt that [Nigro] was an owner of Forrest for purposes of the DOLA,” the Court of Appeal for Ontario ruled in a decision released on Apr. 17. “[Nigro] was the sole person in the company of the dogs at the time of the incident.

“She was employed by the [Lucianos] and had attended at the house to care for the dogs three times a week. She had been in possession of the dogs on prior occasions, just as she was in possession of them on the day of the incident. As was found by the motion judge, she was unquestionably the person in a position to control the behaviour of the dogs at the critical time.”

The Appeal Court similarly rejected Nigro’s claim that the Lucianos were the true owners of the dog because the attack occurred in their home.

“Lest there be any doubt, the DOLA expressly ousts application of the Occupiers’ Liability Act…in relation to the liability of the owner, when the dog bite occurs on the premises of the owner,” the Appeal Court found. “This reflects a policy choice to base liability on something other than ownership or possession of the building in which the incident occurred.

“The DOLA seeks to promote responsibility and accountability in those who are best able to prevent dog bites and attacks, wherever they occur. It would defeat this legislative objective if someone meeting the definition of owner could escape liability merely because they were in someone else’s home at the time of the incident.”

How would the dog-walker be covered?

Would the dog-owner’s injuries be covered under insurance for the incident?

It depends.

CU research on broker websites shows most Canadian home insurance policies include personal liability coverage, which can apply if the homeowners’ dog injures someone (including a hired dog-walker).

However, home insurance policy exclusions for animals may apply, including for breed restrictions, a known aggressive history of a pet, a business arrangement, or liability related to animals.

If a dog-walker owns a commercial general liability (CGL) policy, that might cover a dog-walker if someone else was bitten while the dog was in his or her care.

That said, a standard CGL policy may exclude animal-related claims, and so a dog-walker would need either a specialized pet insurance package or a CGL with an explicit endorsement for pets or animal care.

But what happens if a dog bites the dog-walker?

Typically, a CGL would not cover dog walkers if dogs attack them while in their possession.

Coverage for medical expenses in that case may fall under Workers’ Compensation (WSIB in Ontario), personal accident or injury insurance, or health insurance.

May 5, 2026
How Canada’s commercial liability market is shifting

Canada’s commercial liability market has shifted decisively in favour of buyers in 2026, according to Aon’s Spring 2026 Canadian Insurance Market Update.

“After several years of constrained capacity and firm pricing, insurers are now competing actively for quality accounts, particularly in primary casualty,” the report says. “New entrants and established markets are broadening appetite, stepping up line sizes, and sharpening terms.”

Clients with strong risk profiles are seeing more choice and competitive pricing, Aon says. These clients are also seeing opportunities to enhance wording, expand coverage, and optimize program structure to align with current operations and contractual risk transfer.

The shifting commercial liability market is particularly visible in excess casualty, Aon says.

“Competition for participation on towers that were previously difficult to build is driving meaningful rate reductions and, in many cases, broader coverage for many industries,” the report says. “Capacity is generally accessible, but insurers remain mindful of aggregation and jurisdictional risk, often preferring smaller layers than were typical before the hard market.”

Accounts with heavy U.S. exposure, challenging loss experience or higher-hazard profiles are seeing more measured improvement, Aon says, highlighting the importance of targeted risk improvement, credible data, and clear risk narratives.

For many buyers, this landscape supports a fresh look at limit strategy and structure, including reassessing adequacy in light of social inflation and verdict severity, rebuilding or smoothing towers, and calibrating retentions to balance volatility with balance sheet strength. In many cases, a portion of savings can be redeployed into additional limits, better layering, or expanded protection.

That said, several structural challenges persist, despite broader softening.

U.S. jurisdictional risk remains a central concern, with social inflation (such as nuclear verdicts, or those exceeding $10 million) and litigation funding “sustaining elevated severity expectations,” Aon says. In addition, higher hazard classes, complex product manufacturers, and large fleet or transportation risks continue to attract close underwriting scrutiny and more cautious capacity deployment.

Coverage terms are generally stable and even “improving at the margins” in some cases, Aon reports.

Exclusions for per-and-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS, also known as ‘forever chemicals’) and other emerging contaminants, wildfire, and specific geopolitical exposures remain commonplace, the brokerage says. But underwriters in 2026 are more open to tailoring language for well-controlled risks. And clients that can show strong governance, mature safety culture, and disciplined loss control are best positioned to negotiate refinements and, where appropriate, limited carve-backs.

Underwriting discipline has evolved rather than disappeared, Aon says. “Carriers are still selective, but the stance is more solution oriented, with a greater willingness to differentiate between risks and to adjust pricing, structure, and wording when presented with comprehensive, data rich submissions, clear risk narratives, and credible improvement plans.”

Liability underwriters continue to track a widening set of emerging exposures, including ongoing social inflation, changing litigation trends, environmental, social and governance related scrutiny, cyber and technology driven risks, and environmental liabilities.

2026 is a constructive time for organizations to reassess the design and performance of their casualty programs, Aon says. Priorities include improving exposure data (such as fleet, driver, and contractual information), strengthening safety and claims management practices, reviewing limit structures in light of verdict trends, and fine-tuning retentions and attachment points to reflect true volatility appetite.

Buyers that take a more strategic, data-driven approach in this phase of the cycle will be better positioned to navigate future shifts in capacity, pricing, and liability risk.

As one measure of underwriting profitability, the Canadian commercial liability market ended 2025 with a Net Insurance Service Ratio of 81%, Aon’s report says.

May 5, 2026
Recovery | Injury claims will reveal limitations of Ontario auto reforms

Ontario residents are bracing for the most significant regulatory changes to auto insurance change in years.

On July 1, the province’s Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS) will shift from a comprehensive, uniform benefits package to an à-la-carte model. When that happens, nine of the 12 benefits included today will become optional.

While designed to empower consumer choice, the new model will also create a potential protection gap where coverage is not actively selected.

As claims adjusters, we’ve seen thousands of auto claims, enabling us to anticipate where these gaps are likely to be felt most acutely. And brokers need to be aware of some key considerations as they talk with clients about the upcoming changes.

First, will brokers be able to ensure policyholders understand the impact of à-la-carte decisions?

Under the new SABS regulations, only medical, rehabilitation and attendant care will be mandated benefits. All others must be actively selected by clients. Ontario drivers unaware of the changes – or who select lower levels of coverage – may face an increased risk of underinsurance depending on their circumstances.

Injuries will reveal limitations

For example, consider a hypothetical Ontario driver who sustains multiple physical and psychological injuries in an accident.

If this driver has not selected any optional benefits, they’ll have a combined limit of $65,000 for the mandated benefits of attendant care, medical and rehabilitation. At $3,000 a month for attendant care, and treatment expenses, the driver could exhaust their limit in about 12 to 18 months. That’s significantly less than the five-year maximum eligibility period for reasonable and necessary accident-related treatment.

But, if the insured has selected optional benefits, the coverage could include up to $1 million in combined attendant care, medical, and rehabilitation benefits. Following an accident, they can expect to receive up to $6,000 per month for attendant care, along with access to a case manager to coordinate treatment.

In this scenario, benefits like income replacement, housekeeping and home maintenance, loss of education expenses, and damage to items like clothing, glasses, or hearing aids – all out-of-pocket expenses – will be covered up to selected limits. Reasonable and necessary visitation expenses incurred by a close relative during recovery will also be covered for up to 104 weeks.

Related: Why Ontario auto reform may drive more lawsuits

Of the newly optional benefits, the income replacement benefit (IRB) may be one that policyholders forgo – making it one to review carefully with clients.

As insureds make coverage decisions, they must think first about their financial needs. Policyholders should consider how long their existing savings might cover regular expenses like rent, the mortgage, food, and utilities if they were unable to work after an accident.

In cases involving significant injuries, we’ve seen the standard two-year coverage period is not always sufficient. Some policyholders may decide, based on their financial circumstances, that additional optional IRB coverage is less critical. But others may view higher limits as highly important.

After SABS takes effect, carriers and loss adjusters will most likely see an increase in claimants looking to clarify coverage details. These questions will likely go to brokers first, making it important that brokers are educated on the new changes before the claim reaches the adjuster.

Communicating these changes and their potential impacts on clients is essential.

What carriers need to know

For carriers with commercial products, the new à-la-carte SABS regulations may create additional complexity.

If an employee gets into an accident in a corporate-owned vehicle, there may be challenges in determining which insurance policy will kick in, since the company’s auto policy, workers’ comp, and maybe even other coverages may all be involved. The potential interaction of multiple coverage regimes will require insurers to carefully consider underwriting approaches for commercial policies.

The good news for carriers is that some industry participants anticipate new SABS framework could contribute to changes in claims frequency or overall payouts, although outcomes will depend on take-up rates and claims experience. In the end, this will likely enhance cost savings for carriers but could then shift the costs onto the at-fault party’s insurer, or OHIP.

Education will be key

Transitioning to the new SABS model will be a major shift in accident benefits for Ontarians.

Although it introduces more flexibility for consumers and potential cost savings for insurers, it also increases the risk of coverage gaps for policyholders who don’t select optional benefits. The success of this change will depend on industry-wide awareness and consideration.

Adjusters, brokers, and carriers alike must prioritize education and clarity to ensure policyholders fully understand their choices, and are properly protected in the event of an accident.

Michael McNeill is accident benefits supervisor and Brian Hambly is vice president of loss adjusting at Crawford & Company.

May 5, 2026