The doctrine of waiver was defined in Alberta Court of Appeal Mitchell & Jewell Ltd. v. Canadian Pacific Express Co. as follows: an alternative to a non-waiver agreement is a letter of reservation. Such a letter will contain essentially the same information and would seek to obtain the same protection for the insurer. The main difference is that it is a unilateral document and the courts rely on it less regularly due to lack of acceptance by the insured. identify, where appropriate, issues that could lead to a potential conflict of interest between an insurer and its insured; and confirmation that an insured has read and understood the agreement and may have had the opportunity to obtain legal advice prior to signing. Unlike a non-waiver agreement, the letter of reservation is a unilateral document. Typically, it is prepared by an insurer in situations where its insured does not execute a waiver agreement. The purpose of a reserve letter is to present an insurer`s intentions while conducting an investigation into the validity of coverage. From the insurer`s point of view, it postpones the decision to license coverage until this investigation is completed. The problem with these letters is that, in general, the courts do not impose a refusal of coverage on the basis of the letter alone. In the 1972 Ontario Court of Appeal decision to Allstate Insurance Co.
v. Foster, the court cited London Assurance v. Jonosson and Jessup, J.A. 11 has not been construed as a waiver of the insured`s rights under this policy. The process of protecting an insured in the event of a potential conflict often requires more than one team of lawyers to ensure that different interests are addressed by different parties. This process also ensures that an insurer is not prevented from making the necessary arguments to protect its own interests and maintain its ability to properly investigate coverage. From an insurer`s perspective, an essential part of this equation is the use of non-waiver agreements or reserve letters to reduce legal costs and ensure that it retains control of the dispute. See Shelby Steel Fabricators Inc. v. United States Fid. -Guar. Co., 569 So.2d 309, 311 (Ala.
1990) (the language of non-waiver cited in this case). In addition, it allows the insurer to demand a posteriori from an insured person compensation for all costs or other amounts paid at the time of payment or decision within the framework of the law, in the event of a subsequent finding of non-coverage. . . .