The right to claim proceeds under a fire insurance policy passes to the heir that has a direct interest in the insured property.

A devisee of a cottage and land were entitled to insurance proceeds for the damage to the cottage where the Testator died from smoke inhalation before the cottage was substantially damaged.

Here is the citation: Clements Estate (Re) [2007] N.S.J. No. 248. Nova Scotia Supreme Court. D. MacAdam J. June 1, 2007.

Here is a link to the decision.

This case was originally digested by Jonathan Meadows and edited by David Pilley.

 

 

Continue Reading...

An insurer does not have to advise an insured about a limitation period despite the fact that the insurer intends to rely on the limitation. Funds paid to an insured in error may not be recoverable from a bankrupt insured.

An Insured’s claim for benefits under an overhead expense policy was dismissed where the Court held that the claims were barred by the expiry of the limitation period. The Insurer’s counterclaim for disability benefits paid out in error was also dismissed where the Insured was bankrupt and the Insurer could not establish the benefits were obtained by fraud.

Here is the citation: Armstrong v. Provident Life and Accident Insurance Co. [2007] B.C.J. No. 1282. British Columbia Supreme Court. Gray J. June 12, 2007.

Here is a link to the decision.

This case was originally digested by Jonathan Meadows and edited by David Pilley.

 

Continue Reading...

Parents who negligently supervise a child that injures someone with a motor vehicle may not be entitled to benefits under their home owner's insurance policy.

An Insurer was not required to defend or indemnify the parents of a youth involved in a motor vehicle accident where the Court held that the allegations of negligent supervision were derivative of the claims relating to the motor vehicle negligence claims and consequently were excluded from coverage by the "ownership, use or operation of any motorized vehicle" exclusion in the homeowners policy.

Here is the citation: Co-operators General Insurance Co. v. Murray [2007] O.J. No. 2329. Ontario Superior Court of Justice. J.R. MacKinnon J. June 13, 2007.

Here is a link to the decision.

This case was originally digest by Jonathan Meadows and edited by David Pilley.

 

Continue Reading...

An owner of strata property could be found to be responsible for property damage under a strata policy despite the fact that the owner did not cause the damage.

An owner of a strata property was found to be responsible for property damage caused by a burst water pipe.  The pipe burst due to a build up of acid in the local water supply.  There was no negligence of the owner.  The owner claimed for the damage under his homeowner's insurance policy.  Wawanesa paid the claim and then brough an action against the strata for payment of part of the damage.  The application was dismissed on the basis that the damage was the responsiblity of the owner because it occured on his property. 

Here is the case citation: Strata Plan KA 1019 v. Keiran [2007]B.C.J. No. 1148. British Columbia Supreme Court. Burnyeat J. May 30, 2007.

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

 

Continue Reading...

In Ontario if an accident is caused by an illegally parked vehicle, the owner of the vehicle could be found liable pursuant to Rule 17(2) of the Fault Determination Rules.

Two Ontario insurers disputed responsiblity for accident benefit coverage.  The dispute was submitted to a private arbitrator who applied the Fault Determination Rules of Ontario and determined that the second insurer was responsible to pay the benefits.  The arbitrators decision was appealled to the Ontario Superior Court.  The Court

Application by the second party Insurer against the first party Insurer for appellate review of a decision of a private arbitrator finding the second party Insurer 100% responsible for the loss sustained by an Insured as a result of a motor vehicle accident.  The standard of review applied was one of correctness.  The Court determined that the arbitrator was correct in applying Ontario Rule 17(2) in determining that if an accident is caused by an illegally  parked vehicle the owner of the vehicle is liable for the accident. 

Here is the citation: ING Insurance Co. of Canada v. Farmers’ Mutual Insurance Co. (Lindsay) [2007] O.J. No. 2150. Ontario Superior Court of Justice. P.M. Perell J. May 31, 2007.

Here is a link to the decision

This case was originally digested by Shanti Davies and edited by David Pilley.

 

Continue Reading...