After thoroughly reviewing the law on the defintion of "accident", the court concluded the insured's foolish attempt to take-off with only one functioning engine in a two-engine aircraft, resulting in a crash, was still an accident.

Van Berlo v. Aim Underwriting Ltd., [2014] O.J. No. 3885, August 19, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, V. Mitrow J.

Continue Reading...

A clause excluding coverage for damage arising out of the operation of attached equipment did not apply where the equipment was in use but not being directly controlled at the time of the accident.

Dadey v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, [2014] B.C.J. No. 2118, August 15, 2014, British Columbia Supreme Court, R.W. Jenkins J.

Continue Reading...

Contrary to the trend towards tolerancy in setting aside default judgments, an insurer's motion to set aside default judgment was dismissed.

Kisel v. Intact Insurance Co., [2014] O.J. No. 3812, August 18, 2014, Ontario Supreme Court of Justice, P.M. Perrell J.

Continue Reading...

An insurer was declared the dominus litis of a subrogated claim brought in the name of the insured despite the insureds making assignments in bankruptcy prior to the insurer commencing the action.

Douglas v. Stan Ferguson Fuels Ltd., [2014] O.J. No. 3741, August 13, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, B.W. Abrams J.

 

Continue Reading...

Insured's application for a declaration that the insurer owed a duty to defend regarding an action commenced by a contractor seeking damages for breach of contract, quantum meruit and unjust enrichment for unpaid work . The insured's application was dismissed because the pleadings did not contain a claim for a "wrongful act" within the meaning of the policy.

Thunder Bay Masonic Foundation v. Sovereign General Insurance Co. [2014] O.J. No. 3660, July 11, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, F.B. Fitzpatrick J.

Continue Reading...

Appeal of the dismissal of the insured's appeal from a master's order compelling him to undergo an independent medical examination. The Court of Appeal found no error in the reasons of the chambers judge. The order under appeal required the court to exercise its discretion and absent the finding that it was clearly wrong, the exercise of discretion was entitled to deference. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

Wright v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada [2014] B.C.J. No. 1982, July 30, 2014, British Columbia Court of Appeal, E.A. Bennett, D.C. Harris and R. Goepel JJ.A.

Continue Reading...

Summary trial application by the insurer for an order that the bank's claim under a standard mortgage clause be dismissed because the bank failed to comply with the applicable limitation period. The court dismissed the insurer's application and granted leave to bring a further summary trial application after there had been document production and examinations for discovery. The court found that evidence on why the insurer did not pay the bank was required in order to make a determination of the issues.

Royal Bank of Canada v. Canadian Northern Shield Insurance Co. [2014] B.C.J. No. 1974, July 28, 2014, British Columbia Supreme Court, W.J. Harris J.

Continue Reading...

The insured’s property damage claim under a homeowner’s policy for damage to her house alleged to have been caused by a contractor fell within the “faulty workmanship” exclusion of the insured’s insurance policy, which also excluded resulting damage from faulty workmanship.

Monk v. Farmers' Mutual Insurance Co. (Lindsay), [2014] O.J. 3509, June 27, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, E.J. Koke J.

Continue Reading...

A farmer’s action for damages for bodily injuries and accident benefits arising out of an accident that occurred while he was driving an uninsured all-terrain vehicle on a public road was statute barred by virtue of the operation of Ontario’s 267.6(1) of the Insurance Act and s. 30(1)(a) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule. Although it was exclusively used as a farming vehicle, the ATV did not qualify as a self-propelled implement of husbandry and therefore did not fall within an exception to the compulsory motor vehicle insurance scheme in the province.

Matheson v. Lewis, [2014] O.J. No. 3304, July 11, 2014, Ontario Court of Appeal, R.G. Juriansz, M.H. Tulloch and G.R. Strathy JJ.A.

Continue Reading...

At appeal, the court upheld the trial judge’s decision that a tenant’s insertion of cardboard into furnace controls which caused the furnace to run continually until failure, did not fall within the mechanical breakdown or pollution exclusion under the insured landlord’s all-risk insurance policy. The court also upheld the lower court’s decision that the letter from the adjuster advising no proof of loss was required constituted waiver of the insured’s requirement to file the proof of loss.

O'Byrne v. Farmers' Mutual Insurance Co., [2014] O.J. No. 3303, July 11, 2014, Ontario Court of Appeal, G.J. Epstein, S.E. Pepall and K.M. van Rensburg JJ.A.

Continue Reading...