The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, in dismissing the appeal, held that under the Liner Negligence clause, the insurer had the burden of proving whether or not the loss or damage was the result of a want of due diligence by the insured.
Continue Reading...The Court declared that the OPCF 44R endorsement provided coverage for a motor vehicle collision in Jamaica involving underinsured motorists. Although the Ontario Insurance Act and the standard Ontario Automobile Policy (OAP1) contained territorial limitations with respect to uninsured motorists, it was ambiguous whether the territorial limitations applied to underinsured motorists under the OPCF 44R endorsement.
Continue Reading...The Supreme Court of Canada set aside an award of punitive damages of $100,000 against a disability insurer ("Sun Life"), but upheld an award of $20,000 in aggravated damages for mental distress for breach of contract.
Continue Reading...The insurer’s inadvertent failure to comply with the time limits in the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, Ontario Regulation 403/96, was a procedural error. The insurer was not precluded from challenging the insured’s assertion that she was catastrophically injured. The Court dismissed the insured’s application for partial summary judgment.
Continue Reading...The Insurer’s appeal of a decision awarding damages to the Insured relating to three shipments of laminated truck flooring damaged by moisture during transit was allowed where the Court of Appeal held that there was nothing in the evidence that would support an inference that the conditions in the holds of the three vessels that carried the cargo were in any way exceptional such as to constitute "fortuitous occurrences".
Continue Reading...The Court, in holding that the insurer had a duty to defend, found that the alleged continuing corrosion was property damage to someone other than the insured. Furthermore, the plaintiff’s claim clearly included a claim for compensatory damages, for physical injury to tangible property, and for loss of use of that tangible property.
Continue Reading...The Court dismissed the claim by an Insurer ("Scottish & York") against its sub-broker ("Metrix") for damages arising from a theft of jewellery worth in excessive of $2,000,000. The Court found that Scottish & York failed to prove that the failure by Metrix to communicate the policy warranties to the broker who placed the policy caused or contributed to the loss.
Continue Reading...The claim by Lumbermen’s Underwriting Alliance ("LUA") for equitable contribution from AXA Pacific Insurance Co. ("AXA") in respect of forest fire expenses incurred by LUA’s Insured, Pacific Forest Products ("Pacific"), was dismissed where the Court held that the coverage under the AXA policy was complementary coverage rather than overlapping coverage and did not insure the same risk.
Continue Reading...The issue of whether a nominal owner of property, with no beneficial interest in the property, has an insurable interest, in the context of title insurance, is a novel one which has not been decided by a Canadian court. The insurer’s application for summary judgment was dismissed.
Continue Reading...The Supreme Court of Canada held that in common law under a claims-made policy, the insurer has no duty to defend the actions brought against the insured where no intention is communicated by the claimants or their representatives during the policy period to hold the insured responsible for damages.
Continue Reading...On an application for a Declaration that another insurer share in the costs of the defence of an underlying action, there was nothing in the documentation to specifically identify the contested policy as either a claims-made policy or an occurrence policy. Because more than one reasonable interpretation of the insuring agreement was open, the interpretation favouring the Insured by recognizing a duty to defend resulted and the Declaration was granted.
Continue Reading...On an application for a Declaration that another insurer share in the costs of the defence of an underlying action, there was nothing in the documentation to specifically identify the contested policy as either a claims-made policy or an occurrence policy. Because more than one reasonable interpretation of the insuring agreement was open, the interpretation favouring the Insured by recognizing a duty to defend resulted and the Declaration was granted.
Continue Reading...Enter keywords:
