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

When an employee who is insured under the employer’s commercial liability policy commits an intentional act which results in unintentional harm, the policy’s exclusion clause excluding damage caused intentionally by or at the direction of the insured will not be engaged.

Here is the case citation: Mitsios v. Aviva Insurance Co. of Canada [2008] O.J. No. 552.  Ontario Superior Court of Justice.  B.A. Allen J.  February 19, 2008.

Here is a link to the decision.

This case was originially summarized by Jay Havelaar and edited by David Pilley.

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

An insurer was sued by a person who suffered injuries as a result of mould and bacteria.  The insured was denied coverage under his CGL policy, which stated that coverage was not provided for damages arising from mold.  The insured was obligated to defend the insured because all of the damages could have been attributed to bacteria which was not excluded by the policy.  Because there was a dispute over coverage, the insured was allowed to appoint counsel of his choice to defend the action, and the insurer had to indemnify their insured for the counsel costs.

Here is the case citation: Appin Realty Corp. v. Economical Mutual Insurance Co. 2008 ONCA 95.  Ontario Court of Appeal.  J.I. Laskin, M.J. Moldaver and K.N. Feldman JJ.A.  February 12, 2008.

Here is a link ot the decision.

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

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

In Manitoba, the law with respect to "use or operation" of an automobile in the context of no-fault insurance has not been changed by the recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions of Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. v. Herbison, 2007 SCC 47, and Citadel General Assurance Co. v. Vytlingham, 2007 SCC 46.  The test to be applied is  "Were the injuries caused by (in the sense of being related to) the use of an automobile?  In the present case a person smoking in a parked car attempted to move a full propane tank causing an explosion.  This was found to fall within the use and operation of an automobile.

Here is the case citation: Constantin v. Manitoba Public Insurance Corp. 2008 MBCA 5.  Manitoba Court of Appeal.  R.J.F. Chartier J.A.  January 22, 2008.

Here is a link to the decision.

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

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

The insured owned an abattoir and meat processing plant which was destroyed by fire.  It was insured for full replacement value.  The plant could not be rebuilt do to a change in city zoning.  The insurer sought to change the wording of the contract to provide the insured witht the actual value of the plant as opposed to the replacement cost.  The court found that section 513(1) of the Insurance Act prohibited the insured from rectifying the insurance contract to the detriment of their insured.

Here is the citation: Bouvry Exports Calgary Ltd. v. ING Insurance Company of Canada 2008 ABQB 61.  Alberta Court of Queen's Bench.  M.E. Erb J.  January 24, 2008.

Here is a link to the decision.

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

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

A fire burned down the student union building and the gym that was attached to the building.  A dispute arose as to whether the losses sustained to the gym were covered by the CGL policy issued to the construction company.  The property insurer brought an application for summary judgement.  The court determined that it was not clear form the wording of the policy whether the gym was meant to be including in the CGL policy or not [in which case it would be covered by the property insurance].  The court found that determination of the issue would require a finding based on disputed facts and as such it was not a matter suitable for a summary trial.

Here is the case citation: University of Prince Edward Island v. Stevenson 2008 PESCTD 8.  Prince Edward Island Supreme Court - Trial Division.  D.H. Jenkins J.   January 28, 2008.

I do not yet have a link to the decision.

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

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

A husband was the sole owner of one life insurance policy, and owned a second policy jointly with his wife.  He died.  His children claimed that both policies formed his estate and that they were entitled to a two thirds of both the solely owned policy and the jointly owned policy.  The Ontario Suuperior Court and Divisional Court Agreed.  The wife appealed to the Court of Appeal who determined that the jointly owned policy did not vest with the husband's estate at his death, but rather vested solely to the wife.  The wife was entitled to a third of the solely owned policy and all of the jointly owned policy.

Here is the case citation: Madore-Ogilvie (Litigation guardian of) v. Ogilvie Estate [2008] O.J. No. 170.  Ontario Court of Appeal.  E.A. Cronk, E.E. Gillese and R.P. Armstrong J.J.A.  January 21, 2008.

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 insurance agent was terminated by his employer.  He began soliciting his former clients and persuaded a number of clients to switch to a new policy.  The insurer brought an application to stop their prior employee from contacting their customers.  The court determined that although there was no direct evidence that the agent was inducing former customers to switch policies, there was amply indirect evidence.  The insurer received an injuction to prohibit the former agent from utilizing his knowledge of who the policy holders were and when their policies might expire.

Here is the case citation: PennCorp Life Insurnace Co. v. Oswald [2008] O.J. No. 77.  Ontario Superior Court of Justice.  D.K. Gray J.   January 11, 2008.

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