2019 QCCQ 1284, 2019 QCCQ 1284

Bianchi c. Aviva Insurance Company of Canada 2019 QCCQ 1284 COUR DU QUÉBEC (Division des petites créances) CANADA PROVINCE DE QUÉBEC DISTRICT DE LONGUEUIL LOCALITÉ DE LONGUEUIL « Chambre civile » N° : 505-32-700671-176 DATE : 5 février 2019 ______________________________________________________________________ SOUS LA PRÉSIDENCE DE L’HONORABLE MICHELINE LALIBERTÉ, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ LINDA BIANCHI Demanderesse c.

AVIVA INSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA Défenderesse ______________________________________________________________________ JUGEMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] VU la preuve testimoniale et documentaire (P-1 à P-9 et D-1 à D-5) offerte par les parties; [ 2 ] CONSIDÉRANT que la demanderesse Linda Bianchi réclame la somme de 15 000 $ pour les motifs ainsi énoncés à sa demande datée du 27 mai 2017 : « 1. La

partie demanderesse poursuit la

partie défenderesse pour ls raisons suivantes : As a result of the negligence of Firstonsite which was engaged and dispatched by Aviva as well as Aviva’s indifference to our repeated communications regarding mold issues as a direct result of the lack of proper emergency services performed by Firstonsite, we in fact experienced mold damage on our walls and floors resulting in additional costs to our rebuild as well as causing us undue stress and health issues. 2. Les faits se sont produits le ou vers le 25 février 2017, à Greenfield Park (Longueuil) (Québec). 3. Le montant de la demande est de 15 000,00 $. 4. Aux faits mentionnés ci-dessus, la

partie demanderesse apporte les précisions suivantes : Flooding occurred in our basement due to sewer backup on Saturday, February 25, 2017. Aviva Insurance engaged and dispatched Firstonsite Restoration to perform emergency cleanup services on February 25. Firstonsite was negligent in performing such services, namely they (

i) should have removed the baseboards, walls and flooring (including carpeting), and (ii) did not properly install all fans and dehumidifiers, some of which were left unplugged, thereby impeding the essential drying of walls and floors as mold and bacteria can grow within 48 hours (as indicated on Firstonsite’s own website). In fact, as illustrated in our Exhibits, mold did develop in our walls and floors.

When we informed Aviva of Firstonsite’s negligent emergency services and our concerns over the mold developing in our basement causing health issues, Aviva simply informed us that Firstonsite only performs the bare minimum of services on weekends. To appease our concerns, Aviva sent a scientific expert from MSEI to perform tests, and we were informed that the results would be sent directly to Aviva within three weeks. On the day of demolition, our contractor discovered a significant amount of mold in the walls and floors, as indicated in our Exhibit photos.

I immediately informed Aviva and sent them pictures and video of the mold. Aviva then informed us that they would only release the MSEI report upon our signing a confidentiality agreement. To date, Aviva has confirmed that they have paid the amount covered by the policy and will not pay any additional costs, despite our confirmation of mold due to the negligent emergency services performed by Firstonsite. We have thus had to incur additional costs in the demolition and rebuild of our basement. » (sic) [ 3 ] CONSIDÉRANT que la

partie défenderesse Aviva Insurance Company of Canada, représentée à l’audience par monsieur Raymond Lapointe, refuse de payer la somme réclamée pour les motifs ainsi énoncés à la contestation datée du 15 juin 2017 : « La

partie demanderesse a subit un dommage suite a un refoulement dégout.

Elle possède un avenant dans sa police assurance avec une limite de $10,000 nous avons payé la limite selon le contrat, en plus l’assuré se plait alors nous avons payé l’urgence + facture plombier et un test de la qualité de l’air en plus de notre limitation. » (sic) [ 4 ] CONSIDÉRANT qu’il n’est pas contesté qu’un refoulement des égouts est survenu au sous-sol de la maison de la demanderesse le 25 février 2017, et que ce sinistre était couvert par une police d’assurance en vigueur et émise par la défenderesse Aviva Insurance; [ 5 ] CONSIDÉRANT qu’il n’est pas non plus contesté que selon l’avenant couvrant ce genre de sinistre, une limite maximale de 10 000 $ était payable et fut effectivement payée à la demanderesse;

[ 6 ] CONSIDÉRANT que la demanderesse n’a pas offert de preuve prépondérante permettant au Tribunal de retenir que le sous- traitant Firstonsite Restoration, dépêché par l’assureur, ait négligé à intervenir rapidement et/ou de manière efficace ce qui aurait aggravé les dommages, notamment en ayant omis de couper le bas de murs pour éviter la moisissure; [ 7 ] CONSIDÉRANT que le représentant de Firstonsite Restoration, monsieur Jonathan Belhumeur, a témoigné s’être rendu sur les lieux du sinistre dès le 25 février 2017, avoir aspiré l’eau pendant une longue période et avoir installé des ventilateurs pour assurer le séchage, ce qui était suffisant; [ 8 ] CONSIDÉRANT qu’en tout état de cause, et peu importe la méthode utilisée par Firstonsite Restoration, l’indemnité maximale payable à la demanderesse était de 10 000 $, qui lui a effectivement été versée; [ 9 ] CONSIDÉRANT que même si les travaux correcteurs ont coûté une somme supérieure à 10 000 $, ce qui n’a pas été prouvé, rien dans la preuve offerte par les parties ne permet au Tribunal de retenir que c’est le sous-traitant de la

partie défenderesse qui peut en être responsable; POUR CES MOTIFS, LE TRIBUNAL : [ 10 ] REJETTE la demande, chaque

partie supportant ses frais. __________________________________ MICHELINE LALIBERTÉ, J.C.Q. [1] GIVEN the testimony and documentary evidence (P-1 to P-9 and D-1 to D-5) adduced by the parties; [2] CONSIDERING that the plaintiff Linda Bianchi claims $15,000 for the grounds set out in her application dated May 27, 2017: « 1. La

partie demanderesse poursuit la

partie défenderesse pour ls raisons suivantes : As a result of the negligence of Firstonsite which was engaged and dispatched by Aviva as well as Aviva’s indifference to our repeated communications regarding mold issues as a direct result of the lack of proper emergency services performed by Firstonsite, we in fact experienced mold damage on our walls and floors resulting in additional costs to our rebuild as well as causing us undue stress and health issues. 2. Les faits se sont produits le ou vers le 25 février 2017, à Greenfield Park (Longueuil) (Québec). 3. Le montant de la demande est de 15 000,00 $. 4. Aux faits mentionnés ci-dessus, la

partie demanderesse apporte les précisions suivantes : Flooding occurred in our basement due to sewer backup on Saturday, February 25, 2017. Aviva Insurance engaged and dispatched Firstonsite Restoration to perform emergency cleanup services on February 25. Firstonsite was negligent in performing such services, namely they (

i) should have removed the baseboards, walls and flooring (including carpeting), and (ii) did not properly install all fans and dehumidifiers, some of which were left unplugged, thereby impeding the essential drying of walls and floors as mold and bacteria can grow within 48 hours (as indicated on Firstonsite’s own website). In fact, as illustrated in our Exhibits, mold did develop in our walls and floors.

When we informed Aviva of Firstonsite’s negligent emergency services and our concerns over the mold developing in our basement causing health issues, Aviva simply informed us that Firstonsite only performs the bare minimum of services on weekends. To appease our concerns, Aviva sent a scientific expert from MSEI to perform tests, and we were informed that the results would be sent directly to Aviva within three weeks. On the day of demolition, our contractor discovered a significant amount of mold in the walls and floors, as indicated in our Exhibit photos.

I immediately informed Aviva and sent them pictures and video of the mold. Aviva then informed us that they would only release the MSEI report upon our signing a confidentiality agreement. To date, Aviva has confirmed that they have paid the amount covered by the policy and will not pay any additional costs, despite our confirmation of mold due to the negligent emergency services performed by Firstonsite. We have thus had to incur additional costs in the demolition and rebuild of our basement. » (sic) [3] CONSIDERING that the defendant Aviva Insurance Company of Canada, represented at the hearing by Mr.

Raymond Lapointe, refuses to pay the sum claimed for the reasons set out in its defence dated June 15, 2017: « La

partie demanderesse a subit un dommage suite a un refoulement dégout. Elle possède un avenant dans sa police assurance avec une limite de $10,000 nous avons payé la limite selon le contrat, en plus l’assuré se plait alors nous avons payé l’urgence + facture plombier et un test de la qualité de l’air en plus de notre limitation. » (sic) [4] CONSIDERING that it is not disputed that the sewer backed up into the basement of the plaintiff’s home on February 25, 2017, and that the loss was covered by the insurance policy in effect issued by the defendant Aviva Insurance; [5] CONSIDERING that it is also not disputed that according to the rider covering this kind of claim, a maximum limit of $10,000

was payable and was in fact paid to the plaintiff; [6] CONSIDERING that the plaintiff has not established, on a balance of probabilities, that the subcontractor sent by the insurer, Firstonsite, neglected to act quickly and/or effectively, thereby aggravating the damage, in particular by failing to remove the bottom of the walls to avoid mold; [7] CONSIDERING that Firstonsite Restoration’s representative, Mr.

Jonathan Belhumeur, testified that he went to the site of the claim on February 25, 2017, spent a long time vacuuming up the water, and installed fans to ensure that it dried, which was sufficient; [8] CONSIDERING that in any event, and regardless of the method used by Firstonsite Restoration, the maximum indemnity payable to the plaintiff was $10,000, which was in fact paid to her; [9] CONSIDERING that even if the corrective work cost over $10,000, which has not been proven, there is nothing in the evidence adduced by the parties that would allow the Court to find the defendant’s subcontractor liable; FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [10] DISMISSES the application, each party to pay its costs.