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

A rehabilitation clinic that provided services to two individual Insureds brought an action against the Insureds and their Insurer for payment for services rendered. The Court found that pursuant to section 258(1) of the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.8, a judgment against the Insured was a prerequisite to bringing an action against the Insurer. The current action was therefore premature against the Insurer, but the Court entered judgment against the individual Defendants.

 1489018 Ontario Ltd. v. Vasile [2006] O.J. No. 5187.  Ontario Superior Court of Justice.  C.W. Kilian Deputy J.   December 29, 2006.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The New Brunswick Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by the Plaintiff from a dismissal of his application for an order declaring that no-fault insurance benefits were not deductible from his award for past income loss.

Williams v. Brown [2006] N.B.J. No. 583.  New Brunswick Court of Appeal.   J.E. Drapeau C.J.N.B., M.E.L. Larlee and A. Deschênes JJ.A.  December 28, 2006.

Here is a link to the decision.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Ms. Quinn died of a heart attack.  She had life insurance policy with Canada Life Assurance Co.  Her husband was denied recovery of benefits by Canada Life because his wife failed to disclose material facts in her application which would have resulted in it refusing to issue the policy.   Specifically when asked if she had had an xray within the last five years in her application she did not disclose that she had had a chest x-ray for an enlarged heart.  Mr. Quinn brought an application to compel Canada Life to pay benefits under the life insurance policy.  He was awarded $150,000 at trial, but the Court of Appeal overturned the award ruling that the policy was voided by Ms. Quinn's failure to disclose the chest x-ray.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

An Insurer appealed an arbitrator’s finding that the loss transfer provision in the Ontario Insurance Act applied to the Insurers in relation to a motor vehicle accident which occurred in Vermont. The Court upheld the arbitrator’s decision but disagreed with the arbitrator’s reasoning. On the basis of Unifund Assurance Co. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 63, the Court found that that the loss transfer provision was applicable because a claim under the loss provision section of the Act was separate and distinct from the underlying tort action.

The citation is: Royal & Sunalliance Insurance Co. v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co. [2006] O.J. No. 5131.  Ontarion Superior Court.  December 21, 2006.

Here is a link to the decision.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Insured brought an action under its policy for recovery of contingent business interruption and contingent extra expenses following an explosion at a plant which provided the Insured with its raw materials. The Insurer denied the claim on the basis that the damaged facility was not a "supplier", that the curtailment of production was not reasonable, and the decision to shut down the plant was related primarily to performing maintenance. The Court found that the loss was covered under the policy.

Neste Canada Inc. v. Allianz Insurance Co. of Canada  [2006] A.J. No. 1660.  Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench.   Rowbotham J.  December 20, 2006.

Here is a link to the decision.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A young woman suffered nervous shock after watching her cousin be struck and killed by an uninsured motor vehicle.   A dispute arose as to whether the young woman's insurer or the Uninsured Motorist Claims Fund would be responsible for the damages.  The trial judge determined that the Uninsured Motorist Fund was responsible for compensating the young women.  The finding was upheld on appeal.

The case reference is: LeBlanc v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co. [2006] N.S.J. No. 508, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal.  December 18, 2006.

Here is a link to the decision.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Court found that the owner of a van which struck the Plaintiff during a robbery failed to rebut the statutory presumption that the van was being operated with the owner’s consent when the Plaintiff was injured. Pursuant to s. 144(1) of the Insurance Act and s. 248(3) of the Motor Vehicle Act, the owner’s liability insurer was therefore liable to pay the Plaintiff’s damages.

The case reference is: Morash v. Burke [2006] N.S.J. No. 503, the Nova Scotia Supreme Court, R.W. Wright J.  December 14, 2006.

Here is a link to the decision.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

An Insured under a disability insurance policy (“Rowe”) claimed for damages resulting from the mental distress of having their claim for insurance denied.  After the initial reasons for judgement were released the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Fidler v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada.  Rowe then brought an application requesting the Court vary the award to include damages for mental distress.  The Court awarded $30,000 in damages for mental distress. 

The case reference is: Rowe v. Unum Life Insurance Co. of America [2006] O.J. No. 4937, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, H.S. Polowin J.  December 11, 2006.

Here is a link to the decision.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Bremner Farm sold and repaired farm equipment.  Customers would leave equipment at the farm while it was being repaired.  A fire damaged the farm and some of the customer's equipment.  Coverage under a commercial general liability policy was denied to the customers on the basis that third party personal property under Bremner Farms care and control was excluded by the policy.

The case reference is: Bremner Farms Ltd. v. Economical Mutual Insurance Co. [2006] B.C.J. No. 535, New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, G.S. Rideout J.  December 8, 2006.

Here is a link to the decision [francais].

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A Realtor burned down a house that he was showing.  He was sued by the owner of the house.  The Realtor was insured by a standard homeowners policy.  He brought an application to compel his insurer to defend the lawsuit that was brought against him by the owner of the house.  The Court allowed his application and compelled the insurer to defend the lawsuit.  The insurer appealed.  The appeal was allowed.   The Court of Appeal determined that the realtor's claim was not covered by his insurance policy as he had care, custody, and control of the home at the time of the damage.

The case reference is: Fiaklow v. the Personal Insurance Co. [2006] A.J. No. 1530, the Alberta Court of Appeal.  December 8, 2006.

Here is a link to the decision.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Alberta Court found that the provisions of the Condominium Property Act, the applicable Bylaws, and the applicable insurance policies did not bar a claim by the Plaintiff Condominium Corporations against their general contracting company which was also a unit holder and they were entitled to subrogate against it.

The case reference is: Condominium Corp. No. 9813678 v. Statesman Corp. [2006] A.J. No. 1578, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, Wittmann A.C.J.Q.B.  December 7, 2006.

Here is a link to the decision.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link