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

A condominium developer appealed from a decision that their Insurer could bring a subrogated action against them. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, and held that the Insurer had no subrogation rights against the Insured.

Here is the citation: Condominium Corp. No. 9813678 v. Statesman Corp. [2007] A.J. No. 695. Alberta Court of Appeal. J. Côté, E. Picard and M. Paperny JJ.A. June 28, 2007.

Here is a link to the decision.

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

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

The Insurer appealed a ruling of a motion judge. The motion judge held that a territorial limitation contained in a motor vehicle policy did not apply to the underinsured motorist endorsement and that an insured was entitled to $1,000,000 of insurance coverage as a result of damages suffered in a motor vehicle accident in Jamaica.  The Court of Appeal found that the motions judge erred in her interpretation of the contract, and allowed the appeal, on the basis that the territorial limitation contained in the policy excluded coverage to the insured.

Here is the citation: Pilot Insurance Co. v. Sutherland [2007] O.J. No. 2596. Ontario Court of Appeal. M. Rosenberg, E.E. Gillese and S.E. Lang JJ.A. July 3, 2007.

Here is a link to the decision.

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

An Insurer for a car wholesaler appealed a chambers judge’s ruling that it was to provide first loss coverage in regards to an accident involving a vehicle for sale by consignment that was damaged when it was being testdriven while in the possesion of the car dealer.  The insurer for the wholesaler argued that the dealer's insurer should have been responsible for the loss.  The Chambers judge determined that the wholesaler was an owner pursuant to s. 650 of the Insurance Act and determined that the wholesaler's insurer was responsible. 

The Court of Appeal found that the chambers judge made no error in concluding that s. 650 of the Insurance Act applied, and therefore dismissed the appeal.

Here is the citation: Federated Insurance Co. of Canada v. ING Insurance Co. of Canada [2007] A.J. No. 762. Alberta Court of Appeal. C. Hunt, E. Picard and P. Martin JJ.A. July 11, 2007.

Here is a link to the decision.

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

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

The Court allowed the appeal of the Plaintiff Insured after finding that a personal liability policy was a true excess or umbrella policy andwas not required to respond to the claims until the limits of the primary policy were exhausted.  The Court emphasized that Family Insurance Corp. v. Lombard Canada [2002] 2 S.C.R. 695 did not eliminate the distinction between primary and excess insurance.

Here is the citation: McKenzie v. Dominion of Canada General Insurance Co. [2007] O.J. No. 2518. Ontario Court of Appeal. E.A. Cronk, R.P. Armstrong and J.L. MacFarland JJ.A. June 27, 2007.

Here is a link to the decision.

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

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

On an application to amend the Statement of Claim of a corporate insured in an action alleging bad faith against the Defendant Insurer, the Court permitted an informal admission to be withdrawn and permitted the amendment seeking business interruptions losses since this would not cause prejudice to the Defendant Insurer. The corporate Plaintiff was also permitted to amend the Statement of Claim to seek damages for mental distress on behalf of the officers of the Plaintiff corporation despite the limited scope of coverage extended to officers and shareholders under the policy.

Here is the citation: 539091 Ontario Ltd. (c.o.b. Len’s R.V. Sales) v. Allianz Insurance Co. of Canada. [2007] O.J. No. 2428. Ontario Superior Court of Justice. H.M. Pierce J. June 14, 2007.

Here is a link to the decision.

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

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