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

A broker obtained homeowner's insurance for a customer.  The customer did not correct a number of mistakes that were contained in the application for insurance about her house.  The house was adequately insured, but the contents of the house were underinsured.  The mistakes contained in the application for insurance would not have effected the amount of contents insurance.  The house burned down and the contents were destroyed.  The insured sued her broker for not obtaining sufficient contents insurance based on the mistakes made in insuring the value of her property.  The judge determined that although the broker had made mistakes, the insured would not have obtained additional content insurance.  The claim was dismissed.

Here is the case citation: Strougal v. Coast Capital Insurance Services Ltd. [2008] B.C.J. 107.  British Columbia Supreme Court.  D.A. Halfyard J.  January 22, 2008.

Here is a link to the decision.

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

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A person applied for life insurance.  He advised the insurer that he had never been told that he had problems with his heart or blood vesssels or shortness of breath.  He was granted insurance and subsequently died of a heart condition.  The clinical records indicated that he suffered from shortness of breath but that his doctor did not believe that the condition was related to a heart condition.  The insurer refused to pay the proceeds of the policy on the basis of a misrepresentation.  The insurer was ordered to pay the proceeds on the basis that the insured did not knowingly misrepresent his condition, as it was his belief that his shortness of breath was not related to his heart condition.

Here is the case citation: Kong v. Manulife Financial Services Inc. [2008] B.C.J. No. 65.  British Columbia Supreme Court.  G.B. Butler J.  January 17, 2008.

Here is a link to the decision.

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

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The limitation period in a disability action commences on the date that benefits are terminated, not on the date that the insured is advised that benefits will be terminated.  The insured was successful in brining an application to strike a limitation defence in these circumstances.  The Court applied Balzer v. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, 2003 BCCA 306.

Here is the case citation: Lanki v. Co-Operators Life Insurance Co. [2007] B.C.J. No. 2787.  British Columbia Supreme Court.  Bennett J.  November 7, 2007.

Here is a link to the decision.

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

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Can a person claim for expenses incurred under the medical services plan (MSP) or expenses paid by a hospital in a claim in British Columbia?  The short answer is probably not.  Section 88 of the Insurance (Vehicle) Act precludes recovery of these expenses in claims involving a motor vehicle accident.  There does not appear to be a statutory right to recovery MSP benefits or hospital expenses.  The jurisprudence in British Columbia indicates that the courts will be unlikely to characterize these expenses as being paid pursuant to private insurance.

February 17, 2008.

I have provide a more detailed explanation below.

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

A girl was injured in an ATV accident on an insured property.  The insurer advised their insured that they would defend the claim.  5 months later they changed their mind and advised their insureds that they would not defend the claim.  Economical Insurance Company brought an application for a declaration that they did not have to defend the action.  The application was dismissed.

Here is the case citation: Economical Insurance Group v. Fleming [2008] O.J. No. 20.  Ontario Superior Court of Justice.  Hoilett J.  January 7, 2008.

Here is a link to the decision.

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

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The insured had an expensive wine collection.  They disclosed that they owned the wine, but did not disclose the value of the wine collection.  The insurer made no further inquiries into the value of the wine.  A flood occured and the insured made a claim for the wine under their Homeowner policy.  The insured denied the claim.  The Insureds were successful in obtaining a declaration that one of their Insurers ("Sovereign") was not entitled to void its participation in the policy on the basis of material misrepresentation or non-disclosure where the Court found that Sovereign failed to meet the onus of proving the alleged non-disclosure on a balance of probabilities

Here is the case citation: Wells v. Canadian Northern Shield Insurance Co. [2007] B.C.J. No. 2714.  British Columbia Supreme Court.  Ehrcke J.   December 20, 2007.

Here is a link to the decision.

This case was orginially summarized by Jonathan Meadows and edited by David Pilley.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

This was an appeal by the family and estate of the Insured ("Arruda") from a decision concluding that the Insurer ("Allstate") was not required to pay them benefits under an automobile insurance policy was dismissed where the Court found that the death of Arruda did not result directly from the use of the vehicle.  The assault was clearly percipated by an automobile accident, however Arruda left his vehicle with a baseball bat and was killed by the occupants of the other vehicle who were armed with knives.  The occupants of the other vehicle were convicted of manslaughter.

The case citation is: Haekel v. Allstate Insurance Co. [2007] A.J. No. 1441.  Alberta Court of Appeal.  McFadyen, Ritter and Martin JJ.A.  December 20, 2007.  This decision is also referred to as Arruda [Estate] v. Allstate Insurance Co.

Here is a link to the decision.

This case was orginally summarized by Jonathan Meadows and edited by David Pilley.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Punitive damages of $500,000 were awarded against Insurer who denied coverage to Homeowner whose home was destroyed by fire, where the Court found that the Insurer made unsupported allegations of arson against Homeowner.  Interestingly, there were some factors that supported the insurer's suspicion of arson, including: a conclusion by the firemarshal that arson was likely, the fact that the family, maid and pet were not home, and the financial circumstances of the insured.

Here is the case citation: Sagl v. Cosburn, Griffiths & Brandham Insurance Brokers Ltd. [2007] O.J. No. 3311.  Ontario Superior Court of Justice.  B.P. Wright J.  September 4, 2007.

Here is a link to the decision.

This case was orginally summarized by Jonathan Meadows and edited by David PIlley.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks