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

A Provincial Motor Vehicle Insurer ("ICBC") was required to pay an insured $200,000 for a legitimate insurance claim.  ICBC discovered that the insured brought a fraudulent claim after the occurence of the legitimate claim.  ICBC brought an application by for a Mareva injunction against the Insured to freeze the settlement of the actual claim.  The application was denied on the basis that ICBC did not establish that the funds would be dissipated prior to the resolution of the fraudulent claim.

Here is the case citation: Insurance Corp. of British Columbia v. Patko [2007] B.C.J. No. 1141. British Columbia Supreme Court. Fisher, J. February 15, 2007.

Here is a link to the decision.  This case was originally digested by Shanti Davies, and edited by David Pilley.

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

Effective July 1, 2007.   British Columbia has amended the Rules of Court to require parties to disclose the existence and contents  of any insurance policy which provides indemnity for a judgement, or which provides direct payment of a judgement.  However, the existence of any insurance policy cannot be disclosed to the Court hearing the case.

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

This was an unsuccesful petition by the Insured seeking a declaration that its Insurer had a duty to defend proceedings brought by a third party for damages allegedly sustained as a result of the Insured’s operations.  The insured was alleged to have failed to remove sandblasting residue from the property.  The insurer denied coverage on the basis that the allegations fell within the standard CGL pollution exclusion clause.

The case citation is: Dave’s K. & K. Sandblasting (1988) Ltd. (c.o.b. K&K Sandblasting Ltd.) v. Aviva Insurance Co. of Canada [2007] B.C.J. No. 1203. British Columbia Supreme Court. Goepel J. June 4, 2007.

Here is a link to the decision.   This case was originally digested by Shanti Davies and edited by David Pilley.

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

The Plaintiff and Defendant disagreed about which of them was obligated to pay accident benefits to a man injured in a motor vehicle accident. The Court found that the Defendant was responsible for paying the accident benefits, because the policy was in force at the time of the accident and there was no valid reason to terminate it.

Here is the citation: Canada (Minister of Finance) v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Co. of Canada [2007] O.J. No. 1769. Ontario Superior Court of Justice. D.M. Brown J. May 7, 2007.

This case was originally digested by Sarah Swan and edited by David Pilley.

Here is a link to the decision.

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

The Insured attempted to commit suicide by disconnecting four separate lines supplying natural gas to his residence. The natural gas ignited and an explosion occurred. The Insured was charged with and pled guilty to an offence contrary to s. 436 of the Criminal Code. Since the homeowners policy excluded bodily injury or property damage caused intentionally or resulting from a criminal act, coverage was excluded.

Here is the citation: Yates v. Co-Operators General Insurance Co.[2007] O.J. No. 1549. Ontario Superior Court of Justice. G.E. Taylor J. January 10, 2007.

This case was originally digested by Sarah Swan and edited by David Pilley.

I do not yet have a link to this decision.  It can be accessed at quicklaw.

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

Limitation periods start when a Plaintiff has, or ought to have, discovered, a viable cause of action for any head of damage.  However, a Plaintiff can only commence one action for damages arising from the tortuous conduct.  This could result in no postponement of limitation periods for people involved in motor vehicle accidents in which vehiclar damage occurs.  In such an accident the limitation period for all potential heads of damage would commence as soon as he or she recognized that he or she suffered damage to their vehicle; despite the fact that other heads of damages may not be discovered until after the expiration of the limitation period.

Terry Robertson, Q.C. and I argued a case called Craig v. ICBC, upheld on appeal,  which appears to open the door to this argument.  Here is a link to an article that I wrote on this issue in 2005 and recently updated inJune 2007.

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

The Court dismissed the general contractor’s petition that the respondent Insurer had a duty to defend it in four underlying actions because the alleged damage was to the very building the general contractor was contracted to build and the allegations therefore did not involve "property damage" under the terms of the policy.

Here is the citation: Progressive Homes Ltd. v. Lombard General Insurance Co. of Canada [2007] B.C.J. No. 651. British Columbia Supreme Court. Cohen J. March 29, 2007. 

This case was originally digested by Steve Vorbrodt and edited by David Pilley.

 Here is a link to the decision.

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