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

The Court of Appeal held that the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund was an "Insurer" with respect to the process for resolving disputes over the payment of statutory accident benefits to persons injured in car accidents.

Here is the citation: Allstate Insurance Co. of Canada v. Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund [2007] O.J. No. 292.  Ontario Court of Appeal.   J.I. Laskin, J.M. Simmons, E.E. Gillese, J.L. MacFarland JJ.A. and G.D. Lane J. (ad hoc)   January 31, 2007.

Here is a link to the decision: www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2007/2007onca61/2007onca61.html

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

The Court of Appeal found that the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund (the "Fund") was an Insurer under Ontario Regulation 283/95 for the purpose of resolving disputes over the payment of accident benefits.

Here is the citation:  Kingsway General Insurance Co. v. Ontario (Minister of Finance) [2007] O.J. No. 290 .  Ontario Court of Appeal.  J.I. Laskin, J.M. Simmons, E.E. Gillese, J.L. MacFarland JJ.A. and G.D. Lane J. (ad hoc)   January 31, 2007

Here is a link to the decision: www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2005/2005canlii2045/2005canlii2045.html

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

An Insurer ("Wawanesa") was entitled to rely on a clause excluding coverage for damages caused by settling, expansion, contraction, or bulging where an Insured brought a claim relating to a basement floor which was damaged by upheaval.

Tomko v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co. [2007] M.J. No. 17.   Manitoba Court of Appeal.   Huband, Monnin and Freedman JJ.A.   January 25, 2007

Here is a link to the decision.

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

Successful action by an Insured against an insurance brokerage firm for breach of fiduciary duty, negligent misstatement and negligence in respect of an alleged obligation on the part of the brokerage firm to disclose a hole in the policy of insurance.

National Crane Services Inc. v. AON Reed Stenhouse [2007] S.J. No. 18.   Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench.   Hunter J.   January 19, 2007

Here is a link to the decision.

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

The Court dismissed the Insured’s claim against the Provincial Motor Vehicle Insurer (ICBC) for alleged breach of duty for failing to provide the Insured with a defence to a third party claim and for failing to appoint independent counsel to advise the Insured on the possibility of liability in excess of the policy limits.

Here is the citation: McLean v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia [2007] B.C.J. No. 95.   British Columbia Supreme Court.   Rogers J.  January 19, 2007.

Here is a link to the decision: www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2007/2007bcsc91/2007bcsc91.html

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

The Plaintiff Insured brought an application for a declaration that the Defendant Insurer had a duty to defend it in an Action brought against the Plaintiff in the province of Ontario. The Court found that there was no duty to defend because the Insured failed to disclose information material to the contract, and the insurance contract was therefore void pursuant to section 13 of the Insurance Act.

Here is the citation: Agresso Corp. v. Temple Insurance Co.  [2007] B.C.J. No. 21.  British Columbia Supreme Court.  January 5, 2007.

Here is a link to the decision: www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2007/2007bcsc19/2007bcsc19.html

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