Three insurers must help defend a hunting-trip shooting claim after an Ontario court read "hunting" broadly enough to trigger their duty to defend.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice released its decision on July 8, 2026, in a coverage fight over who must defend a club member sued after a firearm discharged during a hunting trip.
According to the pleadings, the injured man and the defendant went hunting at a property in Mattawa, Ontario, on or about September 10, 2022. That evening, while the group was setting up their tents, the defendant negligently discharged his firearm, striking the man in the right foot and amputating three of his toes.
The defendant carried a homeowners' policy issued by CAA Insurance Company, which accepted coverage and provided a defence. He was also a member of an affiliate club covered under a commercial general liability policy that Aviva Insurance Company of Canada, Sovereign General Insurance Company and Trisura Guarantee Insurance Company had issued to Great North Wildlife Affiliates. That policy carried an endorsement extending coverage to club members for bodily injury tied to outdoor activities, including "hunting." The three insurers denied coverage.
The insurers argued the claim did not involve "hunting" because the shooting happened while the group was pitching tents, not pursuing game. They also argued their policy was excess, so it would not respond while the CAA policy remained available.
The court disagreed on both points. It noted the policy never defined "hunting," and that the insurers had the chance to write a narrower definition but chose not to. Where a coverage term is ambiguous, the court said, it must be read broadly and in favour of coverage. Setting up camp far from home could form part of the larger process of pursuing game. That was enough to establish a "mere possibility" of coverage and trigger the duty to defend.
On the excess question, the insurers said their endorsement was meant to sit behind any personal policy the member already held. The court read the policy differently. The endorsement had to be read together with the main policy, which described the coverage as primary, and it lacked the usual hallmarks of a true excess policy. It did not require members to carry underlying insurance, nor did it state that it applied only above other coverage.
Because both the CAA policy and the commercial policy were primary, and both contained "other insurance" clauses trying to push responsibility onto the other, the court found the clauses irreconcilable. It applied the doctrine of equitable contribution, which spreads the cost between insurers on a pro-rata basis.
The parties agreed that, if a duty to defend was established, the three insurers would contribute 50 per cent of the defendant's defence costs, dating back to July 13, 2023, when they were first notified of the claim.
The court left the question of whether the insurers must ultimately indemnify the defendant for a later trial. A separate issue, whether the member's current lawyer has a conflict because CAA appointed him, remains unresolved.
For claims professionals, the decision is a reminder that an undefined policy term can be construed against the insurer, and that competing "other insurance" clauses can end in shared defence costs rather than a clean handoff to another carrier.
