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

When a contractor expands an existing structure, the contractor's insurance extends to the entire existing structure, such that an explosion caused by a contractor working on the expansion, that damages the existing the structure, is covered by the contractor's insurance.

Here is the case citation: Medicine Hat College v. Starks Plumbing & Heating Ltd. [2007] A.J. No. 1337.  Alberta Court of Queen's Bench.  McDonald J.  November 14, 2007.

Here is a link to the decision.

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

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

Mr. Baig insured his car.  It was damaged and he made a claim of insurance.  The insurer refused to pay the claim so Mr. Baig commenced an action against his insurer to compel payment.  The insurer attempted to examine Mr. Baig pursuant to Statutory Condition 6(4) of the policy of insurance.  Mr. Baig refused to answer any questions about liability of the extent of damages.  The insurer brought a motion to compel Mr. Baig to answer these questions pursuant to Statutory Condition 6(4).  A motion's judge determined that the right to question Mr. Baig pursuant to the contract of insurance was restricted once an action was commenced by the insured.  The Ontario Court of Appeal disagreed and ordered Mr. Baig to attend and answer questions pertaining to issues of liability [how the accident occurred] and damages.

The case citation is Russel Baig v. Guarnatee Co. of North America [2007] O.J. No. 4727.  Ontario Court of Appeal.  Rosenberg, Armstrong Juriansz JJA.   December 5, 2007.

Here is a link to the decision.

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

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

A general contractor had a commercial general liability insurance that contained a clause that excluded coverage for property damage caused by the general contractor.  The property being developed suffered substantial damages and the developer sued the general contractor and a number of sub contractors.  A contentious issue was whether one of defendants was a sub contractor or an independent contractor.  The general cotractor commenced an action against his insurer to compel the insurer to provide a defence to the action.  The insurer refused on the basis that the contract excluded coverage for property damage caused by the general contractor, which includes sub contractors.  In assessing the application the court noted that this was not an appropriate case to refer to extrinsic evidence - the court should only look at the pleadings - in deciding whether the insurer owed a duty to defend the action commenced against their insured.  The court determined that, based on the statement of claim, that the damages claimed amounted to property damage caused by the general contractor or a sub contractor.  The court noted that the determination of whether the sub contractor was an independent contractor was too contentious an issue to resolve in an application for insurance coverage and would have to be resolved at the damages trial commenced against the general contractor.

Here is the case citation: Russel Metals Inc. v. Ball Construction Inc. [2007] O.J. No. 4673.  Ontario Superior Court of Justice.  B.A. Allen J.  November 29, 2007.

Here is a link to the decision.

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

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

A man insured under a standard Ontario automobile insurance policy injured his son while go-karting.  His son sued him and the operator of the go-kart track for injuries suffered in the accident.  The father sued his automobile insurer for coverage under his automobile policy.  A motion's judge determined that a go-kart did not consitute an automboile in ordinary parlance and therefore was not covered by the policy.  The Court of Appeal upheld the motion's judge decision on the basis that a go-kart was not an automoblie pursant to section 224(1) in Part VI of the Insurance Act, R.S.O., 1990, c I.8.

Here is the case citation: Adams v. Pineland Amusements Ltd. [2007] O.J. No. 4724.  Ontario Court of Appeal.  Laskin, Juriansz and Lang JJA.  December 5, 2007.

Here is a link to the decision.

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

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

Two Insureds failed in an action against their private disability insurer claiming that it was wrong for the Insurer to have offset their children's Canada Pension Plan ("CPP") benefits against the Long Term Disability ("LTD") benefits received by the Plaintiffs under the Policies.

Here is the case citation: Ruffolo v. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada [2007] O.J. No. 4541.  Ontario Superior Court of Justice.  P.M. Perrell J.  November 21, 2007.

Here is a link to the decision.

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

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

The Insured was unsuccessful in her appeal of the decision of the Summary Trial Judge finding that she was required to repay the Saskatchewan Health-Care Association (the "Association") for disability benefits she had received under the Plan administered by the Association.  The insured claimed that her lawyer was in conflict of interest because he represented both her, and her subrogated insurer's interests, when he settled her claim.  In addition, the insured argued that the insurer could not subrogate for all of their paid proceeds since the claim was settled on a compromised basis.  The Court of Appeal rejected this argument on the basis that an insurance company should not suffer a financial loss because an insured settled her claim on a compromised basis.

Here is the case citation: Saskatchewan Health-Health Care Assn. v. Zipchen [2007] S.J. No. 620.  Saskatchewan Court of Appeal.  G.R. Jackson, R.G. Richards and Y.G.K. Wilkinson J.J.A.

Here is a link to the decision.

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

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

The Court dismissed the applications of the Insured Company and its two principal shareholders for declaratory relief and an Order that the Third and Fourth Excess Insurers be requried to pay defence costs incurred in Third Party actions and proceedings brought against the Company.  A duty to defend is entirely contractual and a party may not be entitled to defence costs if the insurance contract does not clearly specifiy such coverage.  In such instances a claim for defence costs could be premature and may need to be resolved after ligitation is complete.

Here is the case citation: Hollinger Inc. v. American Home Assurance Co. [2007] O.J. No. 4424.  Ontario Superior Court of Justice.  C.L. Campbell J.   March 22, 2007.

Here is a link to the decision.

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

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

An insured whose loss is less than the deductible under its insurance policy may not turn to the lease to cover those losses.

Here is the case citation: Lincoln Canada Services LP v. First Gulf Design Build Inc. [2007] O.J. no. 4167.  Ontario Superior Court of Justice.  B.A. Conway J. October 31, 2007.

Here is a link to the decision.

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

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

The court's determination of whether all claims pled are covered by an automobile exclusion is fact driven. Where the pleadings give rise to the possibility that a plaintiff's injuries are caused by a corporation's policies and failure to screen drivers' driving records, that claim may be independent of the claim involving the use or operation of an automobile such that it falls outside the scope of the automobile exclusion.

Here is the case citation: Aviva Insurance Corporation of Canada v. Pizza Pizza Ltd. [2007] O.J. No. 4127.  Ontario Superior Court of Justice.  B.A. Allen J.  October 29, 2007.

Here is a link to the decision.

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

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