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

This was an automobile insurer’s appeal of a decision ordering it to pay for separate counsel to defend its insured. At issue was whether the insurer, after adding itself as a third party to a civil action against its insured, had the right to take a position incongruent with the interests of the insured Defendant by raising issues relevant to a coverage dispute between the insurer and insured. The Court of Appeal upheld the motions court decision that the insurer and its counsel did not have the right to take a position contrary to its insured, regardless of whether coverage was in dispute.

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

The Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed the lower court’s decision that a vehicle owner in his capacity as an employer was vicariously liable for damages under the no fault insurance regime.

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

An Insurer of an at-fault driver ("Belair") was entitled to deduct from the award against its Insured the amount of benefits to which the Plaintiff ("Wong") would have been entitled to receive pursuant to legislation providing for the payment of such benefits on a no fault basis.

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

The appeal by the Insurer, Lombard Canada, of a decision compelling the Insurer to defend a claim against its Insured, Hamel Construction, was unsuccessful where the Court of Appeal held that the Court could take judicial notice of relevant statutes to ascertain the true nature of the claim against the Insured in determining the Insurer’s duty to defend.

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

A party suffering a loss during a move may claim against the insurer of the moving company, even though the moving company is out of business.

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

An insured who is found to be in breach of the conditions of his automobile insurance is responsible to compensate his insurer for funds paid to a third party under his policy of insurance. The insurer’s ability to recover these funds from its insured is not effected by the fact that it consented to a Consent Dismissal Order terminating the action commenced against its insured for the injuries suffered in the accident.

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