The Economical Mutual Insurance Company has been ordered by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to pay costs to a client in the fixed amount of $200,000 plus HST of $26,000 and disbursements of $50,000, inclusive of HST. The company was also ordered to pay pre-judgment interest on the case’s previous jury award of $327,000, totalling $72,370.

A previous offer to settle made by the plaintiff in the case would only have cost the company $389,146 – the balance of the endorsement awarded by the jury in the case and $50,000 for costs, an amount that the decision* regarding costs itself says was very reasonable.

“This case involved a claim for the balance of an endorsement to a commercial fire insurance policy of $500,000 issued by Economical,” the decision regarding costs states.

In October 2015, three old buildings, joined together in a historical area of Ottawa, were destroyed by fire and the plaintiff in the case, W. James D. Helmer initially commenced a claim against his broker and Economical seeking the full replacement cost of $4.9-million.

“The action against the insurance broker was settled before trial pursuant to a Pierringer agreement,” which allows the plaintiff to settle with defendants privately, removing them from the lawsuit, the decision adds, noting that the costs related to the claim against the insurance broker were then deducted from the award of costs.

Following this, the amount claimed was $327,162, the balance owing under the endorsement. “This amount was not disputed by Economical but it denied that it was required to pay the balance of the endorsement because of the type of building that was reconstructed on the site (three stories high instead of two),” the decision continues. “The claim was vigorously defended by Economical and the legal proceedings lasted from 2016 until this trial was heard in early 2026, a period of almost 10 years.”

An earlier Ontario Superior Court decision released in 2023 provides additional context on the dispute. In the 2023 ruling, Helmer alleged that Economical had assured him it would pay the remaining amount available under the endorsement once reconstruction was completed and the rebuilding costs exceeded the policy limit. Economical denied giving that assurance, arguing that the rebuilt property did not satisfy the endorsement's requirement that the replacement building be of like height, floor area, style and occupancy. The court allowed Helmer to amend his claim to include additional allegations, including waiver, promissory estoppel, misrepresentation and breach of the insurer's duty of good faith.

Economical itself chose to proceed with a jury trial. The jury awarded the plaintiff the full amount of his claim for the balance of the endorsement.

“Economical did not make any written offer to settle during the 10 years of litigation and as a result, the plaintiff had no option other than to pursue his claim,” the decision regarding costs states. The plaintiff’s offer, meanwhile, was open for approximately 19 months, being withdrawn only just prior to the beginning of the trial. “This offer to settle was very reasonable and in fact was for the amount that the jury found that Economical had promised to pay to the plaintiff.”

The pre-judgment interest rate on the jury’s award was set at the rate of 2.15 per cent, an average prescribed rate taken from the last 10 years of pre-judgment interest rates – beginning in 2016 when the claim was first issued.

* This article is based on an Ontario Superior Court of Justice decision rendered on June 24, 2026, which was publicly available on CanLII, a non-profit online database of Canadian court decisions and legislation, when our newsroom reviewed it. The decision subsequently became unavailable on CanLII and remained unavailable at the time of publication. We have contacted Ontario court officials to clarify why the decision is no longer available and the current status of the court record.