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

The Court dismissed the Insured’s action in which it sought reimbursement from one of its umbrella Insurers of funds paid on its behalf by another umbrella Insurer in a claim settled on a reservation of rights basis. The evidence demonstrated that an endorsement to the umbrella policy of insurance issued by the Defendant came into effect on an occurrence rather than on a claims-made basis and the Defendant was therefore not required to respond to the claim settled by the other umbrella Insurer.

• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Court dismissed the Insured’s action in which it sought reimbursement from one of its umbrella Insurers of funds paid on its behalf by another umbrella Insurer in a claim settled on a reservation of rights basis. The evidence demonstrated that an endorsement to the umbrella policy of insurance issued by the Defendant came into effect on an occurrence rather than on a claims-made basis and the Defendant was therefore not required to respond to the claim settled by the other umbrella Insurer.

• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Pursuant to s. 530 of the Alberta Insurance Act, an Insured was entitled to enforce an unsatisfied judgment obtained against two employees of a company insured by the Respondent Insurer because the Insurer was estopped from denying that the employees were Insured persons under the policy.

• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Court rejected the defendants’ submission that the trial on liability and damages ought to be adjourned pending a resolution of the proceedings in Ontario dealing with the plaintiff’s entitlement to no-fault benefits under an Ontario automobile policy. The Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Act clearly required the court to assess damages without regard to what benefits had been, or may be paid to the insured.

• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Court of Appeal, in dismissing the appeal, held that the waiver of subrogation clause did not apply because it had to be read in connection with the declaration page of the policy. The motions judge erred in concluding that the insurer was entitled to subrogate in the name of the landlord, who was not a named insured, based only on the insurable interest of the landlord in the building.

• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Court of Appeal, in allowing the appeal, held that the "insured v. insured" exclusion clause was unambiguous. The insurer did not have a duty to defend.

• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Court of Appeal held that the automobile insurer did not have a duty to defend because the plaintiff was not an "occupant" of the vehicle at the time of the incident. The Court of Appeal held, however, that the insurer of the homeowner’s policy had a duty to defend. Although the homeowner’s policy excluded coverage for claims arising from the use of a motorized vehicle", it was at least possible based on the pleadings, that the exclusion may not apply.

• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The court authorized the funding of a settlement reached in a derivative action commenced in the State of Delaware. The process of settlement met the test of commercial reasonableness. The mere fact that other insureds had, or may have, claims that were not finally determined, could not operate to prevent those otherwise entitled to indemnity from receiving it.

• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Court dismissed the insured’s action for breach of contract and breach of the duty of good faith in relation to the termination of disability benefits.

• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Court allowed the defendant’s post-trial application pursuant to s. 25 of the Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 231, and deducted, from the damages awarded at trial, a reasonable estimate of the expenses to which the plaintiff was entitled under the no-fault benefits of Part 7 of the Revised Regulation (1984) under the Act (Reg. 447/83).

• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Federal Court dismissed a claim by an Insured for a declaration that he was entitled to indemnity and/or specific performance from his Insurer for losses sustained as a result of the theft of his boat. The Court also dismissed the Insured’s claim against the insurance brokerage firm for breach of contract and negligence arising from the assistance it had provided to the Insured in obtaining insurance for his boat.

• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The court held that the insurer properly denied defence coverage under the "notwithstanding clause". The allegations in the pleadings combined with the admissions made by the insured were sufficient to trigger the mortgage broker/mortgage intermediary exclusion. As such, the insurer’s decision to deny defence coverage was based on reasonable grounds.

• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The court held that the insured, who was bitten by a mosquito and contracted West Nile Virus, was not entitled to accident insurance under the group policy because his injuries were not the result of an "accident", but rather of disease.

• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Section 20 of the Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Act enables a person insured by the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia ("ICBC"), injured in a motor vehicle accident in British Columbia, to seek compensation directly from ICBC once judgement has been obtained for damages. S. 20 also provides ICBC with a right to be compensated by the person responsible for the accident for funds paid to the insured pursuant to s. 20. If ICBC does not comply strictly with the requirements imposed on it by s. 20, ICBC is not entitled to seek compensation from the responsible party.

• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks