THIS IS NOT AN ADVISE... JUST SOME IDEAS
The Ontario Court of Appeal, applying the principles of Agnew-Surpass Shoes to the somewhat different circumstances of St. Lawrence Cement, determined that the insurance clause in the agreement could have no other purpose than to relieve the tug boat company from liability for losses caused by its negligence. The Court reasoned that there would be no need to include the insurance provision in the towing agreement if it was not meant to be of some benefit to the towing company. Furthermore, they found that the insurance contracted for must cover negligence claims because the only way that Wakeham could be responsible for damage to the ship, and thus the only time they would require insurance, was if they were negligent. Therefore the Court concluded that any reference to insurance in the agreement must be meant to cover this contingency. Accordingly St. Lawrence's insurer's claim against Wakeham for the damages was denied.

The St. Lawrence decision serves as an important reminder to landlords that care must be taken when including insurance provisions in a commercial lease. Most commercial leases today stipulate that the tenant is responsible for its own negligence, notwithstanding the landlord's obligation to insure. The St. Lawrence decision and the earlier Agnew-Surpass decision, because they deny the landlord's insurance company the right to recover damages against the negligent tenant, could have serious legal and financial implications for the landlord. These cases are clear authority that the benefit of a landlord's insurance policy may extend to the tenant regardless of the terms of the landlord's insurance policy and regardless of whether the insurance company has agreed to insure against the tenant's negligent actions. ,p>In light of these decisions commercial landlords have three choices to protect their own interests:

1