Almost certainly the coinsurance clause. It is measured against the full value of the building, not against the size of your claim, and it applies to partial losses — which is the ordinary case in fire and water claims. If you were required to carry 90% of rebuild cost and you are carrying three-quarters of that, you recover three-quarters of the loss, and the deductible comes off after that reduction rather than before it.

None of the three. Valuation starts from rebuild cost — what it would cost to reconstruct the building today. Market value reflects land and location; the municipal assessment is a tax figure. Neither has any bearing on what a contractor charges to rebuild, and neither protects you from a coinsurance penalty.

Where a percentage is shown on your declarations page, you have to insure that item to that percentage of its full value — commonly 80% on actual cash value and 90% on replacement cost. It applies separately to each item, and it is measured on the same basis your policy settles on. The standard clause has a floor, engaging only once a loss exceeds the lesser of 2% of the amount of insurance or $5,000, and some package wordings lift that considerably. The practical answer is to update values annually and to ask about a stated amount co-insurance clause, where a pre-agreed value replaces the percentage test.

Replacement cost is normally conditional on actually replacing, with due diligence and dispatch, on the same site, and settlement on that basis is generally made only once replacement has been effected. Decide not to rebuild, or rebuild somewhere else, and you are paid actual cash value. It is also worth knowing what replacement cost does not do: it does not lift your limit of insurance, it does not switch off coinsurance, and it does not pay the extra cost of building to today’s code.

Quite possibly not. Canadian wordings commonly provide that the form does not insure loss of or damage to property which, to the knowledge of the insured, is vacant, unoccupied or shut down for more than thirty consecutive days. In the standard forms that removes cover on the property altogether — fire included — rather than trimming a few perils. Tell your broker as soon as a tenant leaves and ask about a vacancy permit endorsement. Expect restricted terms if one is issued, and expect conditions about heat, security and inspections that are worth treating as binding.

Not under the base policy. Canadian wordings exclude loss arising from the enforcement of by-laws regulating zoning, demolition, repair or construction. You need a by-law extension, and it has three parts: the value of the undamaged portion you are forced to demolish, the cost of demolishing and clearing it, and the increased cost of rebuilding to code. Check how yours is limited — some forms apply one combined amount and provide it without increasing your building limit, meaning it comes out of that limit rather than sitting on top of it.

Neither, as standard, and they are two separate endorsements. Buying one does not give you the other, though some programs will only sell flood cover to a building that already has sewer backup. Read the flood definition before you rely on it: some endorsements respond only to the overflow of a body of water and not to surface water from heavy rain or snowmelt, which is the way a lot of Canadian commercial water losses actually happen. Escape of water from internal plumbing is a different thing again and is generally covered under an all-risk form.

Loss of rental income, which is a separate purchase with its own coinsurance percentage and its own indemnity period. The indemnity period is where owners get it wrong: it has to be long enough to cover adjusting, permitting, demolition, rebuilding and re-tenanting. On an older building where code upgrades extend the rebuild, that can run well beyond twelve months, and the by-law extension pays for the construction, not for the extra months of lost rent.

Ordinarily the tenant. Standard wordings restrict tenant’s improvements coverage to an insured who is not the owner of the building, and usually sit it inside the contents item rather than giving it a limit of its own. Improvements you pay for as the owner belong in your building amount instead. Where the tenant insures them, the landlord should be named loss payee so proceeds covering your reversionary interest are payable jointly — and the lease and both policies should be reconciled rather than assumed to line up.

It is a start, not an answer. A plain additional insured has narrow cover, typically limited to liability arising out of the tenant’s operations under the lease. Additional named insured status is broader but carries its own risk, because you take on the obligations of a named insured and a breach of policy conditions by the tenant can affect your recovery. Neither status reliably gets you notice of cancellation: most policies contain a sole agent clause under which only the first named insured has to be told. Require notice expressly in the lease and confirm it has been endorsed.

It depends on the lease. Where a landlord covenants to insure, that has often been held to give the tenant the benefit of that insurance and to bar a claim against them — but it is not automatic, and it turns on what the lease actually says. If you want to preserve recovery against a negligent tenant, the lease has to say so. If you are the tenant and want protection, get an express waiver. Either way it is a drafting question, not something to leave to the certificate.

No — the market has been softening for two years. Canadian property rates fell 6% in the first quarter of 2026 and 8% in the second, with plentiful capacity and insurers competing on terms as well as price. It is not uniform: risks with adverse loss history, and submissions that arrive thin on detail, see markedly less benefit. That makes this a good moment to do the unglamorous work — correct your building values, add by-law and water buy-backs, revisit coinsurance — and to put a well-documented submission in front of the market while it is receptive.