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

An insured brought an application to determine whether they were entitled to coverage under their insurance policy for consequential damages for a claim that was settled at mediation.  In addition to the consequential damages, there were other significant issues related to the availablility of insurance to various insureds under the builder's risk policy.   The Court determined that the issue of entitlement to insurance proceeds for the consequential loss should not be detemined separately from the other coverage issues.  Canadian Underwriters.ca has also digested this case: Albeta court denies request for a split trial in builders risk policy case.

Inland Concrete Ltd. v. Commonwealth Insurance Co [2008] A.J. No. 571 Alberta Court of Queen's Bench J.J. Gill J. May 21, 2008

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

A man shot and killed his son and then himself while seated in his pick up truck.  His automobile Insurer was successful on appeal in obtaining a declaration that it did not have any duty to defend the deceased Insured's estate or to provide indemnity with respect to a claim brought against the Insured's estate as a result of a shooting death. The Canadian Underwriter.ca disussed this case: Supreme Court's 2007 rulings on "indirect use of an auto" favour ING in Alberta Court of Appeal.

ING Insurance Co. of Canada v. Harder Estate [2008] A.J. No. 579 Alberta Court of Appeal  C.M. Conrad, R.L. Berger and P.T. Costigan JJ.A. May 29, 2008

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

Whether the criminal-act exclusion applies in the context of an insured who is found not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder is an issue that must be settled upon a full factual record at trial.  Mcleans wrote an interesting article on this decision: Who pays if the arsonist is insane?  This case was also digest by the Canadian Undwriter.ca: Does criminal act exclusion apply to a person found not criminally responsble for a house fire?

Cipkar v. RBC General Insurance Co. [2008] O.J. No. 1974 Ontario Superior Court of Justice L. A. Pattillo, J. May 21, 2008

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

In determining whether a loss is caused by mechanical fracture, failure or break down of any part of a motor vehicle pursuant to s. 132(1) of the regulations under Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 231, only the nature of the damage is relevant to the inquiry.  The cause of the damage is relevant in determining whether the damage caused by mechanical fracture, failure or break down of a part is coincidental with other loss or damage for which indemnity is provided.  Here is a link to a discussion on the significance between the cause of a loss and the nature of loss.  This case was also discussed by the Canadian Underwriters in the Canada's Insurance and Risk Magazine.

Dawson Truck Repairs Ltd. v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia [2008] B.C.J. No. 884 British Columbia Court of Appeal P.D. Lowry, E.C. Chiasson and D.F. Tysoe, JJ.A. May 15, 2008

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

When a landlord leases property to a tenant, the lease typically stipulates that the tenant pay for, or obtain, fire insurance.  If a fire occurs and the landlord recovers property damage under the fire insurance policy, neither the insurer nor the landlord can sue the tenant for damages.  For a more detailed discussion of this issue see the Law of the Land blog.   

Alberta Importers and Distributors (1993) Inc. v. Phoenix Marble Ltd. [2008] A.J. No. 510 Alberta Court of Appeal  .D. Hunt, R.L. Berger and C.D. O'Brien, JJ.A. May 14, 2008

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

The cargo insurer of a trailer damaged in a motor-vehicle accident was entitled to bring a subrogated action in the name of the insured against the defendant driver notwithstanding the direct compensation scheme set out in s. 263 of the Insurance Act, R.S.O. c. I.8.

G.L. Gibbons Delivery Service Ltd. v. Jenkins [2008] O.J. No. 1790 Ontario Superior Court of Justice T.P. Herman, J. May 6, 2008

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

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal overturned the chambers judge's decision  that although  proposed amendments to the statement of claim were outside the limitation period, they should nonetheless be allowed pursuant to section 20 of Saskatchewan’s Limitation Act which provides an exception to the normal limitation periods.  Essentially the plaintiff attempted to substantially alter his statement of claim after the expiration of the limitation period.  The Court of Appeal determined that although an existing cause of action had been filed, and although there may not be signficant prejudice to the existing defendants, allowing the amendments would be contrary to the purpose of limitation periods and could not be allowed under Section 20.

Cameco Corp. v. Insurance Co. of the State of Pennsylvania [2008] S.J. No. 244 Saskatchewan Court of Appeal G.R. Jackson, R.G. Richards and D.C. Hunter JJ.A. April 18, 2008

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

When a father purchases automobile insurance for himself and his children, the father is entitled to notice when the insurance on any of the vehicles is cancelled.  In this case the child failed to provide a mechanical inspection report requested by the insurer and was notified that the insurance was cancelled.  Since the father was not notified of the cancellation, the policy remained valid.

Co-Operators General Insurance Company v. Carter, [2008] A.J. No. 457 Alberta Court of Queen's Bench D.L. Shelley, J. April 22, 2008.

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

A “mechanical or electrical breakdown or derangement” exclusion in an insurance policy refers to an internal problem or defect in a machine, not an external interruption in the machine’s power supply.  As such damage resulting from a loss of power was covered by the CGL policy.  The trial judge noted that the equipment did not stop because of an inernal breakdown, but beause of a power outage - in effect the blackout pulled the plug on the machine.  The Globe and Mail wrote an interesting article on the trial decision, which notes that the decision allowed a picklemaker to get out of a 4 year old pickle.

Caneast Foods Ltd. v. Lombard General Insurance Co. of Canada [2008] O.J. No. 1811 Ontario Court of Appeal M. Rosenberg, S. Borins and G.J. Epstein JJ.A. May 9, 2008

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

In deducting no-fault accident benefits from a tort award in a motor vehicle case, a trial judge must estimate the future value of the benefits based on evidence, and not on representations by trial counsel.  In this case counsel argued that ICBC would provide future payment of benefits, but there was no evidence led on this point.  In these circumstances there is no basis for a judge to find that future benefits would be paid pursuant to a first party insurance policy.  Therefore no future benefits were deducted from the award.

McCreight v. Currie [2008] B.C.J. No. 740.  British Columbia Court of Appeal.  C.M. Huddart, P.D. Lowry and S.D. Frankel JJ.A.  April 3, 2008

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