Co-operators Insurance rejects church's bid to forego trial

The lawyer representing Co-operators General Insurance is asking a judge to reject the Archdiocese of Moncton's request to forego a trial.

Danys Delaquis told Justice Stephen McNally Monday that the case merits a trial.

"We reject a summary judgement," Delaquis said in the Court of Queen's Bench in Moncton.

The Archdiocese of Moncton is suing Co-operators General Insurance for $4.2 million. It wants to recover some of the $10.6 million it has paid out to victims of abuse through a confidential compensation process.

The archdiocese had a policy with the insurer between 1977 to 2000, and it believes that's the amount of money the insurer should pay. 

One reason the archdiocese is requesting a summary judgement is because it is "less expensive."

If McNally agrees to a summary judgement the two sides would forego a trial and he would review evidence and make a decision.

"There are no other documents that the parties have that should have been brought before the court in a trial, no further evidence that will assist us," said Chris Blom, one of the lawyers representing the diocese.

Blom's co-counsel Mark Fredrick also told McNally the archiocese is under "pressure."

Frederick told the court that the archdiocese has commitments to settle some claims of abuse by June 2016. The archdiocese is requesting McNally render a decision by that date, so in the event the archdiocese is awarded some or all of the $4.2 million it wants from Co-operators, it can use that money to pay claimants.

McNally stressed that is a tight timeline and "a bit unfair to other people that have been waiting in the queue for trial dates, that will be a consideration."

McNally said he would look into dates and see what he can do, but he made no guarantees. 

Files lost

One of the main issues in this case is the lack of insurance policy records.

Both the Archdiocese of Moncton and the Co-operators have been unable to locate the policy records. 

The lawyers for the archdiocese argue that according to a former policy writer with Co-operators, the maximum coverage limit is $500,000 per occurrence between April 1977 to February 1992. After that the policy limit changed to $2-million per occurrence of abuse.

Delaquis told the judge without the records there is no way of knowing with certainty the exact annual limits to the policies.

"Co-operators can't confirm what the wording is for the entire policy period," Delaquis told the judge.

McNally will now deliberate and make his decision on how to proceed.