After the Jasper wildfires, many homeowners were forced to leave their properties with little notice. Hotels filled up quickly, long-term rentals were scarce, and some families were displaced for months. Most assumed their insurance would cover these living costs until it was genuinely safe and reasonable to return home.

Instead, many Jasper policyholders are now facing Additional Living Expense (ALE) disputes. Coverage hasn’t been denied outright—but it has been shortened, capped, or quietly restricted. These reductions are leaving people out of pocket while their homes remain unlivable.

Understanding how ALE coverage is being limited, and when insurers are wrong to do so, is critical before accepting any decision.

What ALE Coverage Is Supposed to Do

Additional Living Expense coverage exists to maintain your normal standard of living when your home cannot be occupied due to an insured loss. In wildfire situations, ALE is often one of the most valuable parts of the policy.

ALE typically covers:

Temporary accommodation (hotels, rentals, extended stays)
Increased food costs
Storage
Laundry and basic daily expenses
Pet boarding, where applicable

The purpose is not to provide luxury—but to ensure you are not financially penalized because your home is unavailable.

Why ALE Is Being Disputed in Jasper Wildfire Claims

Wildfire displacement in Jasper has been prolonged and complex. Even after evacuation orders were lifted, many properties were affected by smoke contamination, infrastructure damage, or delayed access.

Rather than denying ALE outright, insurers are narrowing its duration and scope. These decisions are often framed as “reasonable limitations,” but many are highly questionable.

Common ALE Disputes We Are Seeing After the Jasper Wildfires

1. ALE Cut Off When Evacuation Orders End

One of the most common insurer positions is that ALE should stop once evacuation orders are lifted.

Insurers may argue:

You were legally allowed to return
Access was restored
The home was “standing”

In practice, many homes were not safe or practical to occupy due to smoke damage, lack of utilities, ongoing inspections, or required remediation. ALE is tied to actual habitability, not just legal access.

2. Claims That the Home Is “Habitable” Despite Smoke Damage

Insurers often take the position that smoke or odour can be cleaned quickly and does not prevent occupancy.

This ignores:

Health impacts of smoke and particulate contamination
Damage to HVAC systems and insulation
The need for professional remediation before re-occupancy

A home does not need to be burned to be uninhabitable. Smoke damage alone can justify continued ALE.

3. Pressure to Move into Inadequate or Unavailable Housing

Policyholders are frequently told they should:

Find cheaper accommodations
Move farther away from Jasper
Accept smaller or unsuitable housing

In reality, post-wildfire housing shortages make many of these suggestions impractical or impossible. ALE must be assessed against actual market availability, not hypothetical options.

4. Arbitrary Time Limits on ALE

Some insurers impose internal timelines on ALE, suggesting coverage should end after a certain number of weeks or months.

These limits are often unsupported by policy language. ALE should continue for the reasonable time required to repair or rebuild, taking into account contractor availability, seasonal construction limits, and municipal approvals.

5. Reimbursement Delays Used as Leverage

Even when ALE is technically approved, insurers may delay reimbursement, creating financial strain.

Common issues include:

Repeated documentation requests
Changing adjusters mid-claim
Partial reimbursements without explanation

Delays can pressure policyholders to accept early cutoffs or reduced settlements.

When ALE Reductions Are Wrong Under Alberta Law

ALE decisions must be tied to the policy wording and real-world conditions. Reductions may be improper when:

The home cannot be safely occupied due to smoke or contamination
Repairs or remediation are ongoing or delayed through no fault of the insured
Suitable housing is unavailable in or near Jasper
The insurer relies on internal guidelines rather than policy terms
Ambiguities are interpreted against the policyholder

Insurance policies are contracts. Where terms are unclear, they are generally interpreted in favour of coverage.

Why ALE Disputes Require Legal Review

ALE disputes are often treated as “practical issues” rather than legal ones. In reality, they are policy interpretation disputes with significant financial consequences.

A dedicated Alberta insurance lawyer can:

Analyze ALE wording and duration clauses
Challenge unsupported habitability determinations
Document why continued displacement is reasonable
Push back on arbitrary timelines and cost caps
Preserve your rights before ALE is terminated

Insurers are far more cautious about cutting ALE once coverage positions are formally challenged.

The “Home Field” Advantage

Jasper wildfire displacement is not theoretical. Housing shortages, seasonal rebuilding constraints, and local health concerns all affect what is reasonable.

At Shiv Ganesh Professional Corporation, we act only for policyholders. We understand how ALE is limited in practice and how to respond when insurers try to end coverage too soon.

Don’t Let ALE End Before You’re Ready to Return

Once ALE is cut off, reinstating it can be difficult. Many policyholders only realize too late that they accepted a premature decision.

If your Jasper wildfire insurance claim includes an ALE dispute—or if your insurer is signalling that coverage will end—get advice before agreeing to anything.

Need help with an ALE dispute after the Jasper wildfires?
Contact us today for a free consultation. We’ll review your policy, assess whether ALE has been improperly limited, and you pay no legal fees unless we recover money for you.