British Columbia Insurance Blog : Canada Insurance Lawyer & Attorney : Michael Thomas of Harper Grey Law Firm : British Columbia, Vancouver

Dunn, an executive covered by a Liability and Indemnification policy issued by Chubb with a policy period commencing November, 1999, seeked to have defence costs in respect of allegations of fraud and misconduct that took place in 2001, as well as misconduct allegations that took place in 2002/2003 paid for by Chubb. The claim was dismissed.

Dunn v. Chubb Insurance Co. of Canada, [2009] O.J. No. 720, February 11, 2009, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, C.L. Campbell, J.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Court held that a travel Insurer ("RBC Travel") did not have a right to bring a subrogated claim in the name of an Insured against the Insured's husband where the husband was also insured under the policy.

Kerr v. Kerr, [2009] N.S.J. No. 63, January 29, 2009, Nova Scotia Supreme Court, G.R.P. Moir J.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

This is a motion by two Defendants in two cases with the same factual matrix arising out of the same event to have the second action struck. The two Plaintiffs are the same in the first action, with one of those Plaintiffs becoming a Defendant in the second action. The motion was dismissed and the actions were ordered restructured, so that both Plaintiffs could pursue their subrogated and uninsured claims against each set of Defendants in a specially managed proceeding.

Hodder Tugboat Co. v. J.J.M. Construction Ltd., [2009] F.C.J. No. 204, February 13, 2009, The Federal Court, Lemieux, J.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The appeal by the Government of Manitoba ("Manitoba") from a trial decision finding that Lumsden was totally disabled under the terms of the Long Term Disability Income Plan for Manitoba employees was allowed in part where the Court found that the $45,000 award for mental distress was excessive and reduced this award to $25,000.

Lumsden v. Manitoba, [2009] M.J. No. 48, February 17, 2009, Manitoba Court of Appeal, R.J. Scott C.J.M., M.H. Freedman and A.D. MacInnes JJ.A.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Insured ("Pearlman") brought a claim against the Insurer ("ACI") alleging that, amongst other things, ACI had acted in bad faith, deceitfully and fraudulently in handling Pearlman's claim for medical expenses related to a motor vehicle accident which occurred in British Columbia. ACI brought a Summary Trial Application to dismiss Pearlman's Action. The Summary Trial Judge dismissed the Application indicating that there were "valid questions" concerning ACI's conduct which he was unable to answer on the material before him. ACI appealed from this decision.

Pearlman v. American Commerce Insurance Co., [2009] B.C.J. No. 299, February 24, 2009, British Columbia Court of Appeal, L.S.G. Finch C.J.B.C., K.J. Smith and S.D. Frankel JJ.A.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Plaintiff was driving in his work truck, which was insured by his employer, when he was involved in a motor vehicle accident with the Defendant who was uninsured. The Court held that the insurer of the Plaintiff’s personal vehicles was not required to provide uninsured coverage. The policy was not triggered because the Plaintiff was not in an “uninsured vehicle” at the time of the accident.

Oliviera v. Mullings 2009 CanLII 3983 (ON S.C.).  January 29, 2009.  Ontario Superior Court of Justice.  Justice J. Kelly.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Teck Cominco Metals Ltd. ("Teck") sued its Insurers in the US for coverage in relation to environmental damage alleged to have occurred in the US. The Insurers commenced parallel proceedings in British Columbia seeking Declaratory Orders regarding their obligation to defend or indemnify Teck. The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the dismissal of Applications by Teck for Orders staying the BC proceedings in favour of proceedings Teck commenced in the US.

Teck Cominco Metals Ltd. v. Lloyd's Underwriters, [2009] S.C.J. No. 11, February 20, 2009, Supreme Court of Canada, McLachlin C.J. and Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Charron and Rothstein JJ.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The issue before the Court was whether the theft of the Plaintiff’s vehicle by the dealer that the Plaintiff had a consignment agreement with was excluded under her automobile policy. The Court held that the exclusion applied.

Do v. Nieswandt 2009 ABQB 43.  Alberta Queen's Bench.  January 22, 2009.  McLeod J.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Appeal by Wawanesa from a declaration that it was obliged to defend and indemnify an automobile policy holder who had an accident while in contravention of her G1 licence which required that she be accompanied by a fully licensed driver at all times when driving.

Becamon v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co. 2009 ONCA 113 ONCA.  February 6, 2009, Ontario Court of Appeal.  MacPherson, Laskin, Armstrong J.J.A.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks