Fosker v. Thorpe [2004] O.J. No. 4187 Ontario Superior Court of Justice

The Plaintiff was struck by an automobile that she owned and insured after it was stolen by an uninsured thief. The Court held that because the vehicle was owned by the Plaintiff and she was insured under the Policy, it was not "an uninsured automobile" as defined in the policy or the legislation. For this reason the action against the Defendant Insurer was dismissed.

Continue Reading...

Kilgour v. Perth Insurance [2004] A.J. No. 1066 Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

The Plaintiff Kilgour’s claim for entitlement to no-fault accident benefits was dismissed where the court found that Kilgour had not been "totally disabled" within the meaning of the policy since the accident and had failed to file the appropriate forms within the prescribed time limit.

Continue Reading...

Whitford v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia [2004] B.C.J. No. 2075 British Columbia Provincial Court

Whitford’s action against his motor vehicle insurer ("ICBC") for damages suffered as the result of the theft of his vehicle was allowed where the court found that ICBC failed to establish that Whitford was involved in or procured the theft of the vehicle.

Continue Reading...

Rotating Equipment Services Inc. v. Continental Insurance Co. [2004] A.J. No. 1340 Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

A subcontractor in a power plant construction project, Rotating Equipment Services Inc. ("RES"), was successful in obtaining an order that Continental Insurance Co. ("Continental") was obliged, under a wrap-up policy, to provide a defence to RES to a counterclaim filed by the owner of the power plant, Canadian Gas & Electric Company Ltd. ("CG&E"). The court found that the allegations against RES included claims for damages relating to property that was not designed or installed by RES, and therefore, coverage was not excluded by the work/product exclusion clauses in the policy.

Continue Reading...

Burkhardt v. Gawdun [2004] S.J. No. 592 Saskatchewan Court of Appeal

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal overturned the decision of the Queen’s Bench setting aside a settlement of a damage claim for personal injuries sustained in a minor car accident. The Court held that the trial judge erred in concluding that the Insurer ("SGI") misused its position of power in an unconscionable manner where the Plaintiff had suggested the settlement, the amount was set objectively using an SGI formula, and the Plaintiff declined to discuss the proposed settlement with her mother or anyone else.

Continue Reading...

Forestex Management Corp. v. Lloyd's Underwriters, Lloyd's, London [2004] F.C.J. No. 1576 Federal Court Vancouver, British Columbia

The application of the Defendant Insurers ("Lloyd’s") to strike the Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim was dismissed where the court held it was not obvious that the Plaintiff’s bad faith action could not succeed where it remained possible for the Plaintiff to add a supporting cause of action on the insurance policy.

Continue Reading...

Protrux Systems Inc. v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia [2004] B.C.J. No. 1967 British Columbia Supreme Court

British Columbia’s statutory automobile insurance is generally the primary insurance for damage to property resulting from an automobile accident. Where the damage results from the abandonment of a trailer truck’s cargo after an accident, ICBC is liable only for the costs of removing the cargo when a legal obligation is imposed upon the driver to remove the cargo. A legal obligation may not arise if an actual order to remove the cargo by a regulatory authority has not been made.

Continue Reading...

Westside Transport Inc. v. Continental Insurance Co. [2004] B.C.J. No. 1971 British Columbia Supreme Court

British Columbia’s statutory automobile insurance is the primary insurance for damage to property resulting from an automobile accident. Where the damage results from the abandonment of a trailer truck’s cargo after an accident, ICBC is liable only for the costs of removing the cargo when a legal obligation is imposed upon the driver to remove the cargo from the accident site. A legal obligation to remove the cargo may arise despite the fact that an actual order to remove the cargo by a regulatory authority has not been made.

Continue Reading...

Marjak Services v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia [2004] B.C.J. No. 1838 British Columbia Court of Appeal

The B.C. Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal of a chambers judge’s ruling that the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia ("I.C.B.C.") had a duty to defend an action on behalf of an employee of a named insured in which the employee of the named insured under a "Garage Automobile Policy" was alleged to have been negligent in failing to stop for medical assistance when his passenger became unconscious as a result of diabetes during the course of a business trip. I.C.B.C. alleged that the chambers judge erred in refusing to consider a written statement made by the insured’s employee after the trip. I.C.B.C. also alleged that the chambers judge erred in concluding that the underlying action could possibly trigger indemnity under the terms of I.C.B.C.’s policy. The Court of Appeal dismissed a cross-appeal by the Co-Operators General Insurance Company who was similarly found to have a duty to defend the corporate defendant, North Okanagan Truck and R.V. Sales Ltd ("North Okanagan") and the defendant driver under its CGL policy.

Continue Reading...

Simison (Litigation Guardian of) v. Catlyn [2004] O.J. No. 3608 Ontario Court of Appeal

The occupant of a stolen car claimed damages against the insurer under the uninsured motorist provisions of his mother’s automobile insurance policy. Applying the rules of statutory interpretation, the Court of Appeal overturned the ruling of the motions judge and held that the exclusion clause in question excluded coverage under the policy for the occupant of a stolen vehicle.

Continue Reading...

Skuratow v. Commonwealth Insurance Co. [2004] B.C.J. No. 1823 Supreme Court of British Columbia

The insured plaintiff was successful in an action for payment under the policy against the defendant insurer because the insured was found not to have made wilfully misleading statements to the defendant. While the statements made by the insured’s wife to the insurer were found to be misleading, the statements were not within the scope of the wife’s authority as an agent. Moreover, nothing of an incorrect or misleading nature said by either the insured or his wife were material to the claim.

Continue Reading...

Gebert v. HSBC Canadian Direct Insurance Inc. [2004] B.C.J. No. 1994 British Columbia Provincial Court

The action of a homeowner ("Gebert") against his Insurer ("CDI") for the value of tools stolen during a break-in to Gebert’s seasonal property was dismissed when the court found that the tools were "business tools" within the meaning of an exclusion in the policy.

Continue Reading...