A commercial property insurance policy issued to a family-owned manufacturing company in southern Ontario had been renewed annually for 12 years without significant amendment to its valuation provisions. The policy covered a 45,000-square-foot production facility housing 2 distinct categories of equipment: a modern automated packaging line installed 3 years earlier at a cost of $2.8 million, and a collection of specialized metal-forming presses originally manufactured in the 1970s that the company had acquired secondhand and refurbished over the preceding 15 years. The older presses, while fully functional and integral to the company's custom fabrication work, had no direct modern equivalent on the market.

The policy contained standard replacement cost language for the building and contents, subject to a coinsurance clause requiring the insured to maintain coverage equal to 90 percent of the property's replacement value. The declarations page listed a total insured value of $6.2 million, a figure that had been adjusted upward by approximately 4 percent at each renewal based on inflation indices rather than formal appraisal. No agreed value endorsement had ever been requested or discussed, and no functional replacement cost provisions appeared in the policy wording.

In early spring, an electrical fire originating in the facility's main distribution panel caused extensive damage to the production area. The fire destroyed 3 of the vintage metal-forming presses entirely and caused heat and smoke damage to 2 others. The automated packaging line sustained moderate damage requiring replacement of several components. The building itself suffered structural damage to approximately 8,000 square feet of the production floor, including roof sections that required complete replacement.

The insurer's adjuster assessed the building damage at $1.4 million on a replacement cost basis. The automated packaging line components were valued at $340,000 to replace with equivalent new equipment. The dispute centered on the vintage presses. The insurer's position held that the destroyed equipment should be valued on an actual cash value basis, applying depreciation schedules that reduced the claim for those items to approximately $85,000. The company's position was that replacement cost coverage applied and that the appropriate measure was either the cost of acquiring and refurbishing equivalent vintage equipment—estimated by the company at $620,000—or alternatively the cost of modern equipment capable of performing the same functions.

The insurer issued a partial payment covering the undisputed building and packaging line components while reserving its position on the vintage equipment. The company formally invoked the appraisal clause contained in the policy, initiating a process that would require each party to appoint an appraiser to determine the amount of loss.