New Brunswick homeowners can pursue punitive damages against their insurer after the province’s Court of Appeal found that unexplained delays in paying a covered claim raised a genuine issue requiring a trial.
In Lanteigne et al. v. Promutuel de l’Estuaire, Société Mutuelle d’Assurance Générale, 2026 NBCA 119, released October 29, 2026, the court partly reversed summary judgment dismissing Jimmy and Renée Lanteigne’s lawsuit. It restored their claims for punitive damages and interest at a rate higher than 2.5%.
The ruling does not establish bad faith or award punitive damages. It means those aspects of the dispute cannot be dismissed on the existing summary-judgment record.
A disputed assessment and delayed payment
The homeowners reported water entering their house after wind damaged the roof in December 2019. Promutuel retained a contractor to investigate and make temporary emergency repairs. A second contractor later provided a substantially higher repair estimate.
The Lanteignes sued in December 2020, seeking compensation for the damage, interest, and aggravated and punitive damages. They alleged that the insurer had improperly relied on an unreasonable initial assessment and had failed to meet its contractual obligations.
An appraisal under section 107 of New Brunswick’s Insurance Act followed. An umpire determined the amount of the December 2019 loss in June 2023, treating later water infiltration as a separate loss that was outside that appraisal.
Promutuel paid $21,471.19 in 2024. It said the payment represented the appraised amount plus interest at 2.5% from December 2019, less the policy deductible. It then sought summary judgment on the basis that the homeowners had been indemnified and no genuine issue remained for trial.
The appraisal remained binding
The appeal court rejected the homeowners’ attempt to reopen the assessment of the property damage. Their evidence did not establish that the umpire had left part of the relevant loss unassessed.
Their affidavits failed to identify when later water infiltration occurred or explain how the reported second loss affected the appraisal. The motion judge could therefore regard their proposed inference as speculative.
The court also confirmed that a jurisdictional challenge to the umpire’s appraisal belonged in judicial review, rather than an action asking the Court of King’s Bench to reassess the loss. The Lanteignes had not pursued judicial review.
That left the dismissal of their claim for an additional insurance indemnity undisturbed. The appeal court did not revive their claims for aggravated damages or additional living expenses.
The insurer’s conduct required a trial
The punitive-damages claim raised a different question. Coverage was not disputed, yet several years passed before payment. The court also identified a roughly ten-month delay after the umpire’s decision, without evidence explaining it.
Promutuel argued that delay alone did not establish bad faith and that the record showed an ordinary disagreement about the amount of the loss. It maintained that the homeowners had not produced evidence of malicious or abusive conduct.
The appeal court found an error in the allocation of the summary-judgment burden. Both sides had to put forward their evidence. But once the delays were in evidence, Promutuel, as the party seeking dismissal, had to establish that they could not reasonably support an inference of bad faith.
Instead, the motion judge appeared to require the homeowners to explain the delays themselves. His reasons also did not address the lengthy gap between the appraisal decision and payment.
The court distinguished the need for a trial from the ultimate threshold for punitive damages, which remain exceptional.
Proportionality could not end the remaining claims
The court rejected reliance on the modest amount left in dispute as a reason for summary dismissal. Proportionality could shape how the case proceeded, but could not eliminate a claim that still raised a genuine issue for trial.
The order restoring the punitive-damages and higher-interest claims also reduced the insurer’s costs award below to $1,250. The homeowners were awarded $2,500 in appeal costs.
