Hollinger International Inc. v. American Home Assurance Co. [2006] O.J. No. 1791, Ontario Superior Court of Justice

The Court held that the excess insurers were not responsible for the defence costs. The excess insurers were not made privy to the details of the proposed settlement.

Continue Reading...

Weeks v. Aviva Canada Inc. [2006] N.S.J. No. 173, Nova Scotia Supreme Court

The Court held that the Insurer did not have a duty to defend. All of the allegations in the action related to the Insureds’ son’s use and operation of an all-terrain vehicle, and fell within the exclusionary clause. The pleading of negligent supervision made against the Insureds was not an independent and discrete cause of action that could potentially trigger the Insurer’s duty to defend.

Continue Reading...

Jones v. LeBlanc [2006] N.S.J. No. 175, Nova Scotia Supreme Court

The Court held that s. 139 of the Nova Scotia Insurance Act (Section D coverage) did not cover the emotional injury suffered by the Plaintiff. The Uninsured Motorist Claims Fund was obligated to pay on behalf of the uninsured defendant.

Continue Reading...

Pereira v. Hamilton Township Farmers' mutual Fire Insurance Co. [2006] O.J. No. 1508, Ontario Court of Appeal

The Insurer’s appeal of a trial judgment awarding damages, including punitive damages of $2.5 million, to insured owners and tenants was allowed where the Court held that the trial judge misdirected the jury on the misrepresentation defence and the "shut down" exclusion.

Continue Reading...

Tench v.Erskine [2006] N.S.J. No. 143, Nova Scotia Supreme Court

An auto insurer ("Economical") was found to have no duty to defend an Insured who assaulted the driver of a neighbouring vehicle where the Court held that the assault did not arise from the "ownership, use or operation" of the vehicle.

Continue Reading...

Brelih v. St. Paul Companies Inc. [2006] O.J. No. 1369, Ontario Superior Court of Justice

An Insured under a claims-made policy ("Brelih") was unsuccessful in obtaining a declaration that his errors and omissions Insurer owed a duty to defend where the Court held that proper notice of the potential claim was not provided within the policy period.

Continue Reading...

Williams v. Di-Carlo [2006] O.J. No. 1415, Ontario Superior Court of Justice,

A driver may still be said to be operating a vehicle even though not behind the wheel. Various inferences were capable of being drawn from the evidence. As such the case should not be decided on summary judgment.

Continue Reading...

Bridgewood Building Corp. v. Lombard General Insurance Co. of Canada [2006] O.J. No. 1288 Ontario Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by the insurer from an order requiring it to indemnify two contractors under the terms of two CGL policies for the cost of repairing new homes. The exclusion for defective work done by the insureds did not apply as the defects were caused by subcontractors.

Continue Reading...