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

A group of Siberian tigers attacked and injured a couple who were driving their car through a game park. The game park was strictly liable for their injuries. Section 267.1(7) of the Insurance Act makes all parties liable for injuries resulting directly or indirectly from use or operation of an automobile severally liable for the damages. The judge determined that section 267.1 of the Insurance Act did not apply because the injuries suffered by the insureds when they were attacked by the tigers could not be said to arise from the use and operation of an automobile.

• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In New Brunswick first party automobile benefits must be incurred within four years of the accident. A benefit is incurred if reasonable necessity for the item or service was determined with certainty within four years of the accident.

• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Section 136(b) of the Regulations to the Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Act, B.C. Reg. 447/83 voids insurance coverage for an insured who leaves the scene of a motor vehicle accident to the prejudice of the insurer. If the insured leaves the scene of the accident to avoid a breathalyzer test, the insurer is prejudiced, and the insured will not be insured for damages arising from the accident. In determining whether an insured has breached the insurance contract an adjuster may contact the police and enquire if charges are being contemplated against the insured.

• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The discoverability principle should be read into a policy of indemnity insurance. The one year limitation period for submitting a claim does not begin until the insured has sufficient knowledge of the material facts to put him or her on notice of a possible claim.

• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The B.C. Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal of a judge’s order directing the plaintiff to produce documents to the defendant insurer providing details of a mediated settlement the plaintiff agreed to on his wife’s behalf in another action arising from a MVA in which the plaintiff’s wife was injured. The Court found that although the "blanket" settlement privilege applied to the settlement documents, the documents fell within an exception to privilege because they were both relevant and necessary.

• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks