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

The statutory one year limitation period in the Fire Insurance Act, is of no force and effect, even if it is reproduced in the wording of the insurance policy.

Here is the citation: Co-operators General Insurance Co. v. Burry [2007] N.J. No. 277. Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court - Court of Appeal. M.A. Cameron, D.M. Roberts and B.G. Welsh JJ.A. August 6, 2007.

Here is a link to the decision.

This case was originally edited by David Pilley.

• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

An insurance broker, who erroneously advised the son of an Insured that he was covered by automobile insurance, was responsible to indemnify the son for damages suffered in an automobile accident, despite the fact that he was not insured.

Here is the citation: Issel v. Melville Agencies (1974) Ltd.[2007] S.J. No. 385. Saskatchewan Provincial Court. Green Prov. Ct. J. July 27, 2007.

Here is a link to the decision.

This case was originally edited by David Pilley.

• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

An Insured who applies for insurance proceeds ten years after the limitation period in the policy has expired, is not entitled to insurance, nor to relief from forfeiture despite the fact that the Insured had a Grade 4 education and was not aware of the existence of her entitlement to benefits.

This case was originally edited by David Pilley.

Here is the citation: Silva v. RBC Life Insurance Co.[2007] O.J. No. 2932. Ontario Superior Court of Justice. K.A. Hoilett J. July 26, 2000.

Here is a link to the decision.

• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In a claim for wrongful dismissal, the triggering event for insurance coverage is when the insured’s employee is both terminated and provided inadequate notice for compensation in lieu of notice.

This case was originally edited by David Pilley.

Here is the case citation: Dynacare Co. v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co.[2007] O.J. No. 2929. Ontario Superior Court of Justice. T.P. Herman J. July 23, 2007.

Here is a link to the decision.

• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A jury is not entitled to award the remedy of relief from forfeiture.  An insured may not elect to proceed with a trial by jury when an equitable remedy, such as relief from forfeiture, is sought.

Here is the citation: Peters v. Co-operators Life Insurance Co. [2007] B.C.J. No. 1642. British Columbia Supreme Court. Frankel J. July 23, 2007.

Here is a link to the decision.

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

• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A person was injured when the slipped and fell infront of a property.  They sued the owner of the property and the company responsible for keeping the property free of ice.  The owner of the property sought coverage under the maintainer's certificate of insurance.  The Ontario Superior Court determined that the owner was not entitled to insurance coverage because the allegations against the owner arose out of their position as occupier of the property a cause of action that was distinct from the allegations of negligence agains the maintainer.

Here is the case citation: D’Cruz v. B.P. Landscaping Ltd. [2007] O.J. No. 2704. Ontario Superior Court of Justice. N.M. Mossip J. July 11, 2007.

Here is a link to the cite.

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

• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

An insured was sued in negligence for inciting a group of people to assault a plaintiff.  The insured sought a defence for the action from his homeowner's insurance policy.  The Ontario Supreme Court determined that the action of the insured fell within the intentional act exclusion clause of the policy and that the insured was not entitled to coverage under his insurance policy.

Here is the citation: Lemieux v. Laclair [2007] O.J. No. 2792. Ontario Superior Court of Justice. T.D. Ray J. June 28, 2007.

Here is a link to the cite.

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

• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

An insured became paralyzed as a result of an infection contracted during unprotected sex.  He applied for accidental disease/dismemberment benefits under his life insurance policy.  The insurer refused to pay the benefits on the basis that the insured's injuries were not the result of an accident that occurred without negligence.  The insurer was ordered to pay the benefits on the basis that the insured could not foresee that he would become paralyzed as a result of unprotected sex.

Here is the citation: Gibbens v. Co-Operators Life Insurance Co.[2007] B.C.J. No. 1606, British Columbia Supreme Court, Cole J. July 19, 2007.

Here is a link to the cite

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

• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks