A horse trainer injured at an insured farm initially pleaded employment, then filed a new negligence claim omitting that allegation. The farm liability insurer relied on employee and workers' compensation exclusions and asked the court to examine evidence beyond the pleadings. The Ontario Court of Appeal required a defence because a covered claim was possible and the disputed employment question belonged in the underlying lawsuit.
Why it matters. A duty to defend doesn't determine ultimate indemnity, and coverage applications shouldn't become trials of disputed liability facts.