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

The Plaintiff entered into a “BC Ferries” settlement with one Defendant.  A remaining Defendant sought disclosure of the settlement amount.  The Court did not order disclosure, but held that the Defendant could amend its pleading to include that it was entitled to have the settlement amount taken into account for the purposes of determining what, if any, portion of damages would be payable by that remaining Defendant.

This case was originally summarized by Sarah Swan and originally edited by David Pilley of Harper Grey LLP.

Here is the case citation: Philips v. Stratton et al. [2007] B.C.J. No. 1940

Here is a link to the decision.

• Print This Article
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks

The public motor vehicle Insurer was not entitled to recover from non-resident tortfeasors only the amount of funds that had been paid to date.  Future amounts payable to the injured party may not be recoverable.   

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

Here is the case citation: Manitoba Public Insurance Corp. v. University of Waterloo [2007] M.J. No. 321.  Manitoba Court of Appeal.  F.M. Steel, B.M. Hamilton, and M.H. Freedman JJ.A.  August 17, 2007.

Here is a link to the decision.

• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Under Ontario law the deduction of income replacement benefits pursuant to section 267(1) of the Insurance Act, must be made from the total quantum of damages.  The deduction is not to be made after the award has been reduced for contributory negligence.

Tthis case was originally summarized by Sarah Swan and originally edited by David Pilley.

Here is the case citation: Cummings (Litigation Guardian of) v. Douglas [2007] O.J. No. 3378.  Ontario Court of Appeal.  R.J. Sharpe, E.A. Cronk, and S.E. Lang JJ.A.  August 31, 2007.

Here is a link to the deciison.

• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Accused was found guilty of providing information to ICBC that he knew or ought to have known was false or misleading after the Court determined that the Accused’s statement that he went into a movie theatre to watch a certain film was false.  

Here is the case citation: R. v. Fortier [2007] B.C.J. No. 1882. British Columbia Provincial Court. Dyer Prov. Ct. J. August 8, 2007.

Here is a link to the decision.

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

• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Insurer’s application for summary judgment was granted after the Court found on a balance of probabilities that the husband of the named Insured deliberately set the fire which destroyed the home.

Here is the case citation: Charles v. Peace Hills General Insurance Co. [2007] A.J. No. 928.  Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench. J.H. Langston J. February 22, 2007.

Here is a link to the decision.

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

• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Court denied the Insured’s application for coverage pursuant to a Homeowner’s Insurance Policy after finding that the loss caused by the Insured’s mistake in failing to turn his sprinkler system to automatic before leaving on vacation did not fall within the coverage provisions of the Policy.  

Here is the case citation: Graham v. Canadian Direct Insurance Inc.[2007] B.C.J. No. 1897. British Columbia Supreme Court. D.M. Smith J. August 28, 2007.

Here is a link to the decision.

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

• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A resident of Alberta with valid Alberta insurance injured in Saskatchewan is entitled to Saskatchewan total maximum benefits of $5,000,000.

Here is the case citation: Lloyd’s Underwriters v. Ibrahim [2007] S.J. No. 395. Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench. Klebuc C.J.S. (ex officio). July 20, 2007.

Here is a link to the decision.

This case was originally edited by David Pilley.

• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Rectification of reinsurance policies will not generally be granted when the parties have approved the terms of the Policy in writing.

Here is the case citation: Swiss Reinsurance Co. v. Camarin Ltd.[2007] B.C.J. No. 1779.  British Columbia Supreme Court. Burnyeat J. (In Chambers). August 10, 2007.

Here is a link to the decision.

This case was originally edited by David Pilley.

• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks