A property can change faster than its insurance file. A residential rental becomes a commercial operation, a tenant changes the nature of the business, or a building starts being used in a way the original policy never contemplated. When a loss follows, the dispute often shifts from the insurer to the broker.
Sanghera v The Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company, 2026 BCSC 1828, involved a building that had originally been insured as a rented residential dwelling and was later rezoned and used by an automotive repair business. After a fire, Wawanesa denied the claim. The insured then pursued her broker, alleging the broker had been told about the change and should have arranged suitable commercial coverage.
The broker claim failed. The Court was not persuaded that the broker had actually been given the information needed to trigger the alleged duty to change the coverage. It also found that the claimed uninsured losses had not been proven in a way that established recoverable damages against the broker.
The decision is important because broker negligence requires more than showing that the policy did not respond. The insured still has to prove what the broker knew or should have known, what a reasonably competent broker would have done, whether suitable coverage was available and what loss resulted from the alleged failure.
For businesses and property owners, the simplest risk control is communication. A material change in use should not sit in a conversation that nobody can later reconstruct. Written notice, updated applications, confirmation of occupancy and clear records of what the broker was asked to arrange can prevent a coverage problem from becoming an evidentiary problem.
The claim against the broker was dismissed. The result does not suggest that brokers have no responsibility to respond to material changes. It shows that responsibility has to be connected to proven information, a proven standard of care and a proven uninsured loss.