The Court held that the primary insurer was the insurer of the vehicle in which the deceased was an occupant at the time of the accident. The Court held that the $1 million underinsured motorist protection limit was the global amount available to satisfy the claims of the three plaintiffs.
Continue Reading...The Court held that due to ambiguity in the language of the policy, "in transit" coverage was included in the insurance policy. The Court also held that the insurer was negligent in failing to provide the insurance coverage applied for by the insured. The agents were negligent in failing to advise the insured of the lesser coverage. The insured was not contributorily negligent in failing to read the policy of insurance.
Continue Reading...The Court held that Manitoba was the forum conveniens with respect to the interpretation of an umbrella insurance policy issued by an American insurance company.
Continue Reading...On a motion for partial summary judgement to dismiss the subrogated portion of the Plaintiffs’ claims brought by the Plaintiffs’ insurer, the Court extended the "anti-subrogation rule" to prevent the insurer from advancing such a claim against its own insured under a separate policy of insurance.
Continue Reading...An Insurer is entitled to recover from the driver of a motor vehicle monies paid out under a policy of insurance for the damages caused to that motor vehicle where it is determined that the driver was driving "while not authorized by law".
After a hearing, the Judge found that because the Plaintiff was a person who "is or would have been" entitled to Part 7 benefits, the Court was required to estimate his entitlement to future Part 7 benefits, and deduct them from the tort award, even if the Plaintiff may never receive those benefits. The Judge also found that the statutory discount rate set by s. 56 of the Law & Equity Act provided no basis for a "top-up" on the award of future pecuniary damages.
Continue Reading...The Chambers Judge found that the liability insurers of a general contractor were not required to provide a defence against claims for the cost of repairing work damaged by the other allegedly defective work within the same structure because such damage did not fall within the meaning of the term "property damage" under the policy.
Continue Reading...There is no duty upon a life insurance applicant to disclose information that has not been requested in a clear and unambiguous way in the insurance application form.
Continue Reading...The Court held that the insurer had not satisfied the onus of providing "clear and cogent evidence" required to establish the quasi-criminal allegation of fraud on the part of the insured.
Continue Reading...Enter keywords:
