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

The Petitioner Insurer ("CNS") was successful in obtaining a declaration that the Respondents (the "Demers") were not entitled to indemnity or defence under a homeowners policy issued by CNS with respect to civil actions brought against the Demers by a neighbour who had been shot by Mr. Demers. The court held that the Demers failed to commence an action for coverage within the limitation period provided by section 22(1) of the Insurance Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 226.

Here is a link to the decision.

• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Applicant Insured ("Musca") was successful in obtaining a declaration from the court that his "former" motor vehicle insurer ("AXA") was obliged to defend a claim arising from a motor vehicle accident which occurred on the day Musca changed insurance carriers and prior to AXA’s receipt of the cancellation certificate.

Here is a link to the decision.

• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Plaintiff’s claim for long-term disability benefits under a group policy of insurance issued by the Defendant was dismissed. The court held that a pre-existing condition exclusion clause was operative where symptoms of a disorder were exhibited during the applicable waiting period even though the ultimate diagnosis of the condition was delayed until after the expiry of the waiting period.

Here is a link to the decision.

• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Standard Ontario automobile insurance policies require the insurance company to provide $200,000 of unidentified driver coverage in its policy of insurance. The insurance company may deduct benefits paid to an insured from private insurance plans from the $200,000 policy limit, even when the result would be less than full indemnification to the insured.

Here is a link to the decision.

• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Without prejudice letters from an adjuster to a third party who has threatened, but not commenced an action against an insured, can confirm a cause of action and extend the limitation period, if a reasonable person objectively viewing the letters would conclude that the insurer was going to settle the threatened personal injury claim, or at the very least, that the only issue in dispute would be the quantum of the claim.

Here is a link to the decision.

• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The discoverability principle should be read into a policy of indemnity insurance, such that the limitation period does not commence until the extent of the loss arising from an incident covered by the policy is quantifiable.

Here is a link to the decision.

• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Court, in dismissing a motion for summary judgment, was satisfied that the issue of whether the insured had an honest but mistaken belief of valid insurance was a genuine issue for trial.

• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

An unintentional self-inflicted injury to an intoxicated Insured was found to come within the exclusion clause in the Insurer’s group insurance policy and accordingly the claim by the family of the Insured for accidental death benefits was dismissed.

Here is a link to the decision.

• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

An Insured who makes a claim against an unidentified automobile under s.33 of the Newfoundland Insurance Act is required to prove that all reasonable efforts in the circumstances were made to ascertain the identity of the owner or driver of the unidentified automobile and the reasonableness of such efforts is to be judged from the time of the accident, not when the Insured becomes aware of the injury and potential cause of action.

Here is a link to the decision.

• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Court held that the bank and insurer did not have an agency relationship with respect to line of credit life insurance. Accordingly, no contract of insurance was created by the mere submission of an insurance application to the bank. Nominal damages were awarded for the bank’s breach of contract and breach of duty of care.

• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Insured was not entitled to recover against the Insurer or the Brokers for losses arising out of three instances of defective workmanship on reconditioned farm equipment since the CGL policy provided by the Insurer excluded losses of that nature. The Broker was not the agent of the Insurer and did not negligently misrepresent the nature of the policy to the Insured.

Here is a link to the decision.

• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Appellant Insurer was not entitled to rely on a ratability clause pertaining to "sue and labour" expenditures as the application of that clause was limited by the policy to specific circumstances which were not present on the facts. Nor did section 79(2) of the Marine Insurance Act apply to reduce the recovery of the Insured since the loss arose from a peril insured against, namely vandalism.

• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks