A builders risk policy is meant to keep a construction project moving after a major loss. It can also create a difficult second question once the insurer has paid. Who, if anyone, can the insurer pursue to recover what it paid?
That question sits behind Gair Williamson Architect Inc. v. GMC Projects (450 Gore) Inc., 2026 BCCA 255. A fire separation wall collapsed during construction and the builders risk insurer paid approximately $3.4 million. The developer then pursued a subrogated action against project participants that included the architect and structural engineer. Those defendants argued that they should be treated as unnamed insureds with insurable interests in the project and that the policy structure prevented a subrogated claim against them.
The important part of the Court of Appeal decision is what it did not decide. The Court did not rule that the architect or engineer was an unnamed insured. It did not rule that the insurer was entitled to recover from them. Instead, it upheld the chambers judge's refusal to decide those issues by summary judgment or summary trial.
That matters because builders risk disputes often tempt parties to turn broad project insurance concepts into automatic rules. The Court resisted that approach here. The relationship between the consultants, the project and the policy required a fuller factual record. The law governing unnamed insured status and subrogation could not responsibly be separated from those facts without risking fragmented litigation or inconsistent findings.
For insurers, insureds and project professionals, the practical significance is procedural but real. A builders risk policy may create strong arguments about shared insurance protection, but those arguments still have to be proven against the actual contract and the role of the party claiming protection. The existence of an insurable interest does not, by itself, answer every question about insured status or waiver of subrogation.
The appeals were dismissed. The underlying recovery action remains alive for trial, where the court can decide the policy and project relationship on a complete evidentiary record.