A judge has ruled that Saskatchewan Government Insurance (SGI) has failed to prove its case that the owner of a building intentionally set fire to the structure after it had been flooded.
Prosecutors say that Chancey Heiser, the owner of the damaged fitness facility at the heart of the case, is still facing criminal charges.
In September 2009, Heiser purchased the property and renovated it. According to the Court of Queen’s Bench decision, the building was still undergoing renovations when a July 01, 2010 rainstorm flooded the property, causing extensive damage.
Heiser made a claim for insurance over the water damage. But later that month, a fire was reported at the gym. The fire rendered the structure beyond repair, and Heiser consequently filed another claim, for fire damage. The second claim also sought coverage for the replacement cost of the building and lost income.
SGI rejected the claim, which later led to Heiser filing a civil lawsuit. A lawyer representing the building owner said that criminal charges were laid against his client four years after the fire.
The insurer argued that Heiser intentionally set his building aflame, reasoning that he had a motive – the desire to relieve himself of the “crushing burden of financial stress.” SGI also pointed out that Heiser was present at the gym during the evening before the fire. The insurer also introduced witnesses who testified that Heiser appeared stoic and impassive as he watched his building burn.
SGI even brought in an expert witness who determined that the fire was deliberately set.
Saskatchewan Justice Michael Tochor dismissed the insurer’s arguments.
“While there are signs of financial strain, especially after the flood of July 01, 2010 causing the gym to shut down, I am not persuaded the company’s financial plight was as bleak as SGI argues,” the judge wrote in his decision.
Tochor also stated that Heiser did not try to hide at the gym on the evening prior to the fire, and pointed out that the witnesses who observed his oddly calm attitude recognised that people may have different responses to a traumatic event.
The expert witness who testified he believed the fire was deliberately set said there was no evidence for his belief. Two other expert witnesses brought in by the plaintiff also testified, finding that the fire’s cause was “undetermined.”
Although Heiser’s claim has been allowed, both parties will have to set a date to determine the amount SGI has to pay for damages, CBC News reported.
