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

The plaintiff property owners were successful in their action involving an insurer's duty to defend. The property owners were involved in two underlying actions involving slip and falls in parking lots where they had contracts with a winter snow removal contractor to clear the lots. The property owners third partied the contractors in the underlying actions.

RioCan Real Estate Investment Trust v. Lombard General Insurance Co.  April 16, 2008.  Ontario Superior Court of Justice.  Hennessy J.

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

The Insured was unsuccessful in its appeal of a decision finding that the Insurer did not have a duty to defend it in third party proceedings under a commercial general liability policy.

CUMIS General Insurance Co. v. 1319273 Ontario Ltd.  April 7, 2008.  Ontario Court of Appeal.

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

The Insured was successful in obtaining no-fault insurance benefits pursuant to the Saskatchewan Automobile Accident Insurance Act due to the Court's finding that his injuries were caused by the use of a motor vehicle. 

Hagen v. Hillcrest Enterprises Ltd.  March 28, 2008.  Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench.  Zarzeczny J.

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

The Insured sought continued disability benefits under a policy of insurance obtained through her employer. The Insured's claim was dismissed on the basis that she failed to prove that she continued to suffer from "total disability" as the term was defined in the employer's long-term disability plan.

Penner v. Manitoba.  March 13, 2008.  Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench.  Oliphant A.C.J. Q.B.

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

Under the summary trial provisions in the British Columbia Supreme Court Rules, both the plaintiff and defendant sought a declaration that they were the lawful sole beneficiary under a group life insurance policy. 

Rainsford v. Gregoire.  March 12, 2008.  Biritish Columbia Supreme Court.  Masuhara J.

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

The plaintiff brought a motion to compel counsel for the insurer to re-attend for further cross examination on an Affidavit she swore in support of an Order compelling the plaintiff to attend three defence medical examinations. The Court so ordered.

Trecartin v. Pilot Insurance Co.  March 17, 2008.  Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

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

The insurer appealed a trial judgment finding the insured entitled to insurance coverage for contingent business interruption. The appeal was dismissed.

Nestle Canada Inc. v. Allianz Insurance Co. of Canada.  March 20, 2008.  Alberta Court of Appeal.

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

The Court dismissed the insurer's appeal from a judgment dismissing its claim that the insured's action was barred by the two year limitation period. The Court found that the matter could not be determined on a motion for summary judgment and that special circumstances existed which gave rise to an extended limitation period. 

Reinbrecht v. Reinbrecht.  March 18, 2008.  Ontario Court of Appeal.

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

The Plaintiff homeowners were successful in their action against their insurer for damages caused to the roof of their residence during re-shingling where the Court found that the high winds which caused the tarps to be ripped off the roof were unexpected and, consequently, the ensuing water damage fell within coverage. 

Vennard v. Aviva.  March 4, 2008.  Ontario Superior Court.  Harris.

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