The certificate of insurance arrived by email on the afternoon before the tenant took possession, a single-page document listing the commercial landlord as a certificate holder and showing general liability coverage of $2,000,000 per occurrence with a $5,000,000 aggregate. The landlord's property manager filed it in the tenant's lease folder and marked the insurance requirement as satisfied. That was 14 months ago.

The tenant, a specialty food retailer, had signed a 5-year lease for a 3,200 square foot unit in a mixed-use commercial building in a mid-sized Ontario city. The lease contained standard insurance provisions requiring the tenant to maintain commercial general liability insurance with limits of not less than $2,000,000, to carry property insurance covering the tenant's improvements and business contents, and to add the landlord as an additional insured on all liability policies. The lease further required the tenant to provide the landlord with certificates of insurance upon request and to ensure that each policy contained an endorsement requiring the insurer to provide the landlord with 30 days written notice before any cancellation or material change.

When a customer slipped on a wet floor in the tenant's premises and sustained injuries requiring hospitalization, the landlord discovered for the first time that the certificate of insurance it had received did not mean what it had assumed. The certificate identified the landlord only as a certificate holder, not as an additional insured. The tenant's insurance broker confirmed that no additional insured endorsement had ever been issued naming the landlord. The broker noted that the certificate itself stated clearly, in small print at the bottom, that it was issued as a matter of information only and conferred no rights upon the certificate holder.

The injured customer has now retained counsel and sent a demand letter naming both the tenant and the landlord as defendants, alleging that the landlord failed to maintain the premises in a safe condition and that the tenant was negligent in allowing water to accumulate on the floor. The demand seeks damages of $450,000 for medical expenses, lost income, and pain and suffering. The landlord's own commercial property and liability policy provides coverage for claims arising from common areas but contains an exclusion for claims arising from premises leased to tenants where the tenant was required by lease to maintain insurance.

The landlord has now reviewed the lease provisions in detail and discovered that while the tenant's certificate of insurance showed coverage existed at the time of lease commencement, there is no evidence that the landlord was ever actually added as an additional insured on the policy, no record that the required endorsement for 30 days notice of cancellation was ever obtained, and no documentation confirming whether the tenant's current coverage remains in force. The tenant has not responded to the landlord's requests for updated insurance documentation.