The New Brunswick Court of Appeal has allowed in part the appeal brought by Jimmy and Renée Lanteigne against Promutuel de l'Estuaire, Société Mutuelle d'Assurance Générale (Promutuel), their home insurer. The summary dismissal of their claim for an additional indemnity of $32,481.45 is upheld.

However, the claims for punitive damages and for interest at a rate above 2.5% must be decided at trial, because a genuine issue remains as to the insurer's conduct in handling the claim. The decision was released on October 29, 2026.

A water infiltration loss and a disputed estimate

The Lanteignes own a home insured by Promutuel. On December 10, 2019, the residence suffered water infiltration after wind damaged the roof. Coverage for the loss was not contested; the dispute concerns the amount of the indemnity and the timing of payment.

The adjuster, Winmar, estimated the cost of repairs, including the roof, at $7,634.53 plus HST. According to the decision, the amount payable after the $1,000 deductible was $7,779.71. A different estimate, by Claim Restore, put the replacement cost at $32,481.45, including HST and before the deductible.

In December 2020, the Lanteignes sued Promutuel for $32,481.45, plus interest and aggravated and punitive damages, challenging the insurer's reliance on Winmar's assessment.

In June 2023, each party appointed an estimator and, as they could not agree, an arbitrator was appointed under the insurance act. The mechanism is intended to resolve disputes over the amount of a loss simply and speedily.

In his decision of June 16, 2023, the arbitrator concluded that there were two separate losses, those of December 10, 2019, and May 7, 2020, which could not be combined in a single estimate. He noted that the Lanteignes' estimator, Rémi Doiron, had lumped together the damage from both. He assessed only the first loss, at $20,282.78.

He did not assess the May 7, 2020, loss. The Lanteignes also maintain that the arbitrator did not rule on their claims for aggravated and punitive damages, additional living expenses and interest.

Late payment and summary dismissal at first instance

Promutuel paid the Lanteignes $21,471.19, which, according to the insurer, corresponded to the indemnity set by the arbitrator plus interest at 2.5% from December 2019, after deduction of the deductible. According to the reasons, the payment was made on April 9, 2024, nearly ten months after the arbitrator's decision. The Lanteignes argue that more than four years elapsed before any payment was made.

Promutuel obtained summary judgment dismissing the claim, arguing that the arbitrator's award and subsequent payment left no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The motion judge found insufficient evidence that Promutuel had caused unreasonable delays. The Court of Appeal disagreed with that analysis.

The arbitrator's estimate remains final

The Court of Appeal first rejects the ground based on the insurance act. It writes that it finds no error in the judge's analysis on this point. A court cannot reassess a loss that has already been estimated, but it retains jurisdiction over questions that do not concern the assessment, such as coverage or the interpretation of the contract.

The arbitrator's decision is final and could be challenged only by judicial review. The Lanteignes did not bring an application to that effect.

The Court emphasized that the Lanteignes were required to put forward all their evidence at the summary judgment stage. Having failed to show that part of the loss had gone unassessed, they could not call into question the finality of the estimate.

Unexplained payment delays: the question of bad faith will go to trial

The Court found that the judge erred in dismissing the punitive damages claim without a trial. As the party seeking summary judgment, Promutuel had to establish that the evidence of payment delays could not reasonably support an inference of bad faith.

Once the evidence of the delays was in the record, it fell to Promutuel to establish that they could not reasonably support an inference of bad faith.

The Court observed that no evidence explains the delays identified by the Lanteignes. The judge appears to have required the Lanteignes to explain them themselves, which was an error. It also noted that the judge's reasons do not address at all the delay of approximately ten months between the arbitrator's decision of June 16, 2023, and the payment of April 9, 2024, even though the evidence establishes that delay.

The Court recalled that an insurer rarely admits having intended to wear down the insured and that the court must draw inferences from the evidence. Where the evidence supports inferences in either direction, a trial is warranted. It also recalled that punitive damages remain exceptional, reserved for insurer conduct that departs markedly from ordinary standards of decency.

The Court also rejected reliance on proportionality and judicial efficiency to dismiss the interest claim, holding that these principles cannot justify summary dismissal where a genuine issue remains for trial.

Allowing an insurer to delay payment of sums it acknowledges owing, and then to invoke the modest scale of the dispute, would risk distorting that principle. The same logic applies to interest above 2.5%, since a genuine issue remains as to the insurer's conduct.

What the court orders

The Court reinstated the claims for punitive damages and interest above 2.5%, while upholding the dismissal of the additional indemnity claim of $32,481.45.