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

Mr. Darch set fire to his parents' home resulting in the total destruction of the premises. He was charged with arson but found "not criminally responsible" for the offence in the criminal proceedings. The home was insured by the defendant insurance company. The insureds submitted a proof of loss regarding the fire and were denied coverage on the basis that the loss was excluded under the policy. At issue was whether the intentional act exclusion in the insurance policy applied such that the defendant insurer was not required to compensate the plaintiffs for the losses. The court found that the exclusionary provisions applied and that the defendant insurer was not required to compensate the plaintiffs.

Darch Estate v. Farmers' Mutual Insurance Co. [2011] O.J. No. 2971, June 13, 2011, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, M.L. Lack J.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Appeal by the insured from the dismissal of his action on the basis that the action was brought outside the one-year limitation period in the Insurance Act. The British Columbia Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred in law in failing to apply the two-year limitation period contained in the policy and further that the policy limitation gave rise to a rolling limitation period.

Sander v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada, [2011] B.C.J. No. 5, January 6, 2011, British Columbia Court of Appeal, L.S.G. Finch C.J.B.C., M.E. Saunders and K.E. Neilson JJ.A.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Insurer's application to be added as a party in an action by former employees against former directors and officers of its insured company was dismissed.

Pope & Talbot Ltd. (Re), [2011] B.C.J. No. 793, April 28, 2011, British Columbia Supreme Court (In Bankruptcy and Insolvency), P.W. Walker J.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Insured was entitled to coverage under the policy because membership in AMA was not a condition precedent to coverage and there was a reasonable expectation that the policy would be renewed on an annual basis.

Lafont v. Alberta Motor Assn. Insurance Co., [2011] A.J. No. 513, May 3, 2011, Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, D.J. Manderscheid J.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Evidence of insured's girlfriend sufficient to corroborate insured's evidence of the involvement of an unidentified driver in a motor vehicle accident such that he was entitled to coverage under the Family Protection Endorsement OPCF 44R.

Pepe v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., [2011] O.J. No. 2011, May 3, 2011, Ontario Court of Appeal, D.H. Doherty, M.J. Moldaver and K.N. Feldman JJ.A.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

An insured homeowner sought insurance coverage for the damage caused by a marijuana grow-operation carried out by  the insured's tenants.  The insured argued that a grow-op falls within coverage for vandalism or malicious acts.   The insurer argued that mould and moisture damage caused by the grow-op fell outside of coverage. The British Columbia Supreme Court held that a tenant who has a grow-op shows a reckless disregard for the landlord's rights.   That disregard provides a sufficient basis to infer malice on the part of the tenant.  The Court held that the mould and moisture damage caused by the grow-op can therefore be considered damage caused by an act of vandalism.

Hanlon v. ING Insurance Co. of Canada, [2011] B.C.J. No. 84, January 24, 2011, British Columbia Supreme Court, R.J. Sewell J.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Appeal of declaration of entitlement to long-term disability benefits to age 65 allowed, the Court finding that the insured was only entitled to long-term disability benefits for two years.

McGarry v. Co-operators Life Insurance Co., [2011] B.C.J. No. 773, April 28, 2011, British Columbia Court of Appeal, K.C. Mackenzie, P.D. Lowry and C.E. Hinkson JJ.A.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Appeal from master's decision that insured had "required license" under aircraft policy allowed.

Gudzinski Estate v. Allianz Global Risks US Insurance Co., [2011] A.J. No. 473, April 26, 2011, Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, B.A. Browne J.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The insured brought a professional negligence claim against a broker and the brokerage firm alleging that the broker misrepresented to the insured that its wholesale inventory was covered by insurance while in storage. The court dismissed the claim finding that the broker was retained only to place specific coverage and that he had fulfilled that duty.

Sandborn Wholesale Ltd. v. Pottruff & Smith Insurance Brokers Inc., [2011] O.J. No. 1690, April 12, 2011, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, B.A. Conway J.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link