Garnier v. Kilkenny [2006] B.C.J. No. 1787, British Columbia Provincial Court

The Small Claims Court judge found ICBC liable as a nominal defendant after an unidentified assailant damaged the Claimant’s vehicle with a baseball bat while both their vehicles were stopped at an intersection.

Here is a link to the decision.

Continue Reading...

Mattock v. Saskatchewan Mutual Insurance Co. [2006] S.J. No. 423

A house which suffers water damage is not vacant, under the terms of standard property insure, if a tenant has control over the house, but resides at a different property.

Here is a link to the decision.

Continue Reading...

Commercial Union Assurance Co. of Canada v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh [2006] M.J. No. 258, Manitoba Court of the Queen's Bench

As a preliminary matter to an Application to determine whether an Insurer was obligated to share in the costs of defending an Insured under a liability policy, the Insurer sought a ruling as to the proper law to be applied to the policy. The Court ruled that the proper law of the contract was New York.

Here is a link to the decision.

 

Continue Reading...

Arnold v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co. [2006] N.J. No. 211, Newfoundland Supreme Court

A primary insurer does not have to provide it’s certificate of insurance to a secondary insurer until a condition precedent for payment of funds under the secondary coverage has occurred.

Here is a link to the decision.

 

Continue Reading...

Gogna v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. [2006] O.F.S.C.D. No. 115, Ontario Financial Services Commission

An insured does not have to undergo an independent medical examination, when the physician conducting the examination creates a tense atmosphere such that the examinee feels uncomfortable during the assessment.

Continue Reading...

Trainor v. Barker [2006] O.J. No. 3858, Ontario Superior Court of Justice

The Insurer of a Defendant driver who settled with the Plaintiff sought indemnification from the Insurer of the Defendant driver’s employer. The Court found that s. 277(1) of the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.8, applied to establish priority between the Defendant driver’s "owner’s policy" which was "first loss" insurance and the Defendant employer’s "non-owner’s policy" which was excess insurance only.

Here is a link to the decision.

Continue Reading...