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

A passenger in a motor vehicle owned and operated by an uninsured Defendant was not covered by the uninsured motorist coverage of the policy insuring the other vehicle involved in the collision.

• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On appeal to the B.C. Supreme Court from a Small Claims court decision, ICBC was not held liable for the costs of repairing damage to a truck engine caused by a driver’s negligence.

Here is a link to the decision.

• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Court was asked to determine the order in which and to what extent three insurers were responsible for indemnifying and defending the insured under three different policies. The Court found that one policy was the primary insurance policy, and the other two were excess insurance policies. The primary Insurer would have to indemnify and defend the Insured up to the policy limits, after which point the excess insurance would be required to contribute equally up to the respective policy limits.

Here is a link to the decision.

• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Court dismissed the Insured’s application for a declaration the Insurer had a duty to defend the Insured who had driven his 170 horsepower SeaDoo into the Plaintiff. There was no ambiguity in the limitation clause which precluded coverage for watercraft less than 26 feet long.

Here is a link to the decision.

• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Plaintiff succeeded in his action against the Defendant car rental agency which was found liable for damages sustained in a motor vehicle accident when the vehicle was driven by an unauthorized driver. The permitted driver acquiesced to the unauthorized driver’s use of the vehicle by riding in the car with him and therefore continued to remain "in possession" of the vehicle.

Here is a link to the decision.

• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal of motion judge’s decision dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant’s Insurer pursuant to s.258(1) of the Insurance Act because the Insured was not entitled to indemnity under the policy.

Here is a link to the decision.

• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks