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

When a number of Insureds seek to recover under the terms of a Family Protection Coverage Endorsement (“FPCE”), additional coverage for injuries caused by uninsured motorists, the fact that an eligible Insured as defined in the endorsement is jointly liable with the uninsured motorist, does not affect other eligible Insureds’ entitlement to claim under the Endorsement.  In this case not seeking to recover damages against one insured person resulted in creating coverage that the insured would not otherwise be entitled to under their insurance policy.

This case was originally summarized by Cameron Elder and edited by David Pilley.

Here is the citation: Gostick (Litigation guardian of) v. Squance (Litigation administrator of) 2007 ONCA 674.  Ontario Court of Appeal.  D.H. Doherty, J.C. MacPherson and E.A. Cronk JJ.A.  October 4, 2007.

Here is a link to the decision.

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

When an Insured seeks to recover damages in respect of bodily injury to or death of an Insured arising directly or indirectly from a tortfeasor’s use or operation of a motor vehicle, the claim must arise through an unbroken chain of causation from the ownership or from the use or operation of a motor vehicle.  In this case two criminals transported boulders to an overpass with their car and dropped them on cars travelling below.  The court determined that the fact that the car was used to transport them and their boulders to the scene was not sufficient to create insurance coverage for their actions under their car's automobilie insurance policy.

This case was originally summarized by Cameron Elder and edited by David PIlley.

Here is the case citation: Citadel General Assurance Co. v. Vytlingam 2007 SCC 46.  Supreme Court of Canada.  McLachlin C.J. and Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron and Rothstein JJ.  October 19, 2007.

Here is a link to the case.

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

When an Insured seeks to recover damages in respect of bodily injury to or death of an Insured arising directly or indirectly from a tortfeasor’s use or operation of a motor vehicle, the claim must arise through an unbroken chain of causation from the ownership or from the use or operation of a motor vehicle.  In this case a hunter who drove to the field in his car and mistaken shot his friend while hunting was not entitled to coverage under his automobile policy.

This case was originally summarized by Cameron Elder and edited by David Pilley.

Here is the case citation: Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. v. Herbison 2007 SCC 47.  Supreme Court of Canada.  McLachlin C.J. and Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschmaps, Fish, Abella, Charron and Rothstein JJ.  October 19, 2007.

Here is a link to the case.

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

Ontario’s “no-fault” regime prohibits all tort actions against a negligent party for recovery of property damage. This prohibition applies not only to claims of individuals, but also to subrogated claims brought by insurers.

This case was originally summarized by Cameron Elder and edited by David Pilley.

Here is the citation: Clarendon National Insurance v. Candow 2007 ONCA 680.  Ontario Court of Appeal.  J.C. MacPherson, R.J. Sharpe and R.G. Juriansz JJ.A.  October 5, 2007.

Here is a link to the case.

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

The Insureds were successul in an action against their Broker in negligence for failing to provide them with sufficient advice about their home insurance policy.  The Broker did not provide negligent advice.  However, the broker was negligent because their clients had an imperfect understanding about the nature of the a water endorsement on the insurance policy provided by the Broker and what additional steps might be required to obtain the additional endorsement.

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

Here is the citation: Clark v. D.A. Hargreaves Insurance Ltd. [2007] A.J. No. 985.  Alberta Court of Appeal.  D.  Lee J.  September 6, 2007.

Here is a link to the decision.

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

A University's Insurer was successful, on an appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal,  to compel the Insurer for Judo Ontario to contribute to a settlement agreement reached between the University and one of its students who had sustained injuries while sparing with a classmate.  The fact that the University Judo club had not paid it's dues to Judo Ontario meant that the Judo Club's instructors were not members in good standing.  This did not preclude the instructors from coverage under Judo Ontario's insurance policy.

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

Here is the case citation: Canadian Universities Reciprocal Insurance Exchange v. CGU Insurance Co. of Canada [2007] O.J. No. 3612.  Ontario Court of Appeal.  J.M. Simmons, E.A. Cronk, R.A. Blair J.J. A.  September 25, 2007.

Here is a link to the decision.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks (1)
• Share Link

A plaintiff injured while riding as a passenger in an uninsured vehicle which collided with another insured vehicle may be entitled to the other vehicles uninsured motor vehiicle coverage pursuant to section 224 of the Ontarion Insurance Act.  The injured party relied upon Taggart v. Simmons (2001) 52 O.R. (3d) 704.

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

The case citation is: McCardle v. Bugler  [2007] O.J. No. 3614.  Ontario Court of Appeal.  M. Rosenberg, P.S. Rouleau JJ.A. and G.P. Killeen J. (ad hoc).  September 25, 2007.

Here is a link to the decision.

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

A town was insured under a commercial general liabilitiy insurance policy.  The town was sued for breach of contract.  The statement of claim included claims for negligent misrepresentation and for proprietary estoppel.  The court determined that the additional claims were derivative of the breach of contract claim and that the insurers did not owe a duty to defend the town pursuant to the insurance policy.

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

Here is the case citation: Rocky Mountain House (Town) v. Alberta Municipal Insurance Exchange [2006] O.J. No. 3875.  Alberta Court of Queen's Bench.  G.A. Verville J.  September 6, 2007.

Here is a link to the decision.

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