Wang v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. [2004] O.J. No. 3525 Ontario Court of Appeal

The Ontario Court of Appeal overturned the finding of the motions judge on a Rule 21 procedure and ruled that the death of an insured during childbirth from an amniotic fluid embolism did not result from an "accident". For this reason, and because amniotic fluid embolism was found to be a physical illness which constituted an exclusion, coverage under the terms of the accidental death benefit rider was denied.

Continue Reading...

Greenhalgh v. ING Halifax Insurance Co. [2004] O.J. No. 3485 Ontario Court of Appeal

This is an appeal from the decision of the motions judge holding that, pursuant to the Ontario rule, the Plaintiff had suffered an impairment as a result of an "accident" as defined in the Ontario Statutory Accident Benefit Schedule. At issue was whether the Plaintiff’s injuries were "directly caused by the use of an automobile". The Court of Appeal held that they were not.

Continue Reading...

Insurance Corp. of British Columbia v. Kushneriuk [2004] B.C.J. No. 1776 British Columbia Court of Appeal

This is a decision overturning a finding of a chambers judge who decided on an application that the most seriously injured of three tort claimants should take 100% of the available third party insurance proceeds rather than share those proceeds with the other two claimants on a pro rata basis.

Continue Reading...

Thon v. Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation and Insurance Corporation of British Columbia [2004] B.C.J. No. 2319 Supreme Court of British Columbia

A Manitoba resident, driving a vehicle insured in Manitoba, does not have to register his motor vehicle in B.C. while visiting the province for more than 30 days if he is in B.C. for touring purposes. The motorist was found to be in B.C. for touring purposes despite the fact that he was working for a relative during his visit.

Continue Reading...

Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co. v. Hewson [2004] S.J. No. 534 Saskatchewan Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal affirmed the decision at trial that an insurer had a duty to indemnify against and defend an action brought by Dayton Hewson, an insured under a policy of liability insurance, against his father and mother, Larry and Jean Hewson, also insured under the same policy. The insurer argued that an exclusion clause in the policy excluded liability coverage for an insured in respect of a claim brought by another insured. The trial judge found that Dayton was an employee of his father, and therefore the exclusion clause did not apply. The Court of Appeal upheld the trial finding that the wording of the exclusion clause was ambiguous, and the definition of "employee" was reasonable; therefore, there was no error sufficient to warrant interference by the Court of Appeal.

Continue Reading...