Trecartin v. Sonnet Insurance Company, 2026 NBKB 96
Reading time: 4 minutes (approx.)
By: Hayley Gardner (Articled Clerk)
On November 3, 2021, a residential property located in Nerepis, New Brunswick was destroyed by fire. The owner of the property, Mr. Trecartin, subsequently submitted a claim to his home insurance provider, Sonnet Insurance Company. Sonnet denied coverage for the loss, initially citing the policy’s vacancy exclusion provision.
The matter was before the Court of King’s Bench by way of reciprocal motions for summary judgement. Mr. Trecartin sought a determination that the property was properly insured at the time of the loss, while Sonnet sought a finding of no coverage and a dismissal of the claim. Three issues pertaining to the denial of coverage were advanced by the parties on the motion:
- Was the property vacant, as defined by the policy, for thirty consecutive days prior to the fire?
- Did Mr. Trecartin misrepresent the occupancy status of the property on his initial application for insurance?
- Did changing the property’s power source from public utility power to generator power represent a material change in risk that Mr. Trecartin ought to have disclosed to Sonnet?
Under the terms of the policy, coverage is ousted if a property is vacant for thirty days. A property is considered vacant if either a) it does not contain furnishings or household belongings sufficient to make it habitable, or b) all residents have moved out with no intent to return. Under the first definition, Mr. Trecartin was able to establish that the house was fully furnished and that it was still habitable, despite the sole power source being generator power.
Under the second definition, Mr. Trecartin was less successful. At the time of the loss, he had been living in the Moncton area due to parole conditions and had not actually resided at the property for some years, but he had been regularly visiting the property, which he argued demonstrated his ongoing intention to return. However, the use of the word “residents” in this definition of vacancy meant that Mr. Trecartin’s intention to return was only relevant if he was first found to have been a resident. The Court noted that residency connotes a sort of permanency, and it was thus unable to accept that the short visits constituted residency.
Neither Mr. Trecartin nor anyone else had actually been a resident of the property for at least thirty days prior to the fire. Thus, the property was vacant on the date of the fire, and the denial of coverage was upheld on this ground.
The Court then went on to consider the other two potential grounds for denial. First, Sonnet had asserted, but was unable to prove, that Mr. Trecartin had misrepresented the property as being owner-occupied on his initial application for insurance. Sonnet’s fatal error was its failure to actually produce a copy of the application that Mr. Trecartin had completed in 2021. Thus, coverage could not be denied on this ground.
On the issue of a material change in risk, Sonnet argued that Mr. Trecartin’s decision to disconnect the property from public utility power and power it solely with a generator represented a material change in risk which had not been disclosed. However, the Affidavit evidence put forth by Sonnet to prove that such a change was objectively material to the risk was filled with inaccurate facts and incomplete supporting information, which rendered it unreliable. Sonnet also failed to put forth any evidence to establish that, subjectively, Mr., Trecartin ought to have known that the change was material to the insured risk. Again, coverage could not be denied on this ground.
Sonnet’s motion for summary judgement was ultimately successful, as coverage had been rightfully denied on the basis of the vacancy exclusion.
Link: 2026 NBKB 96 (CanLII) | Trecartin v Sonnet Insurance Company | CanLII
