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

The Court issued a declaration that the Insurer was not under a duty to defend the Insured in a third party action brought by the City of Barrie where the "property damage" at issue in the underlying action occurred outside of the policy period.

1214528 Ontario Ltd. v. Continental Insurance Co. of Canada

[2005] O.J. No. 6376, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, P.M. Perell J., June 17, 2005

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

The limitation period for automobile insurance benefits is two years in British Columbia.  The insured commenced an action, alledging bad faith, for failing to advise the insured of his potential entitlement to benefits and of the limitation period.  A preliminary motion to quash the action was dismissed on the basis that the limitation period did not apply to a non-contractual claim against the insurer. The decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal on the basis that a trial would be required to determine if a valid action existed.

McIlvenna (Litigation guardian of) v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia

[2008] B.C.J. No. 1267 British Columbia Court of Appeal C.M. Huddart, P.A. Kirkpatrick and D.A. Tysoe JJ.A  July 7, 2008

Here is a link to a summary prepared by the Canadian Underwriter. 

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

Michelin was unsuccessful in obtaining a declaration from the Court that ACE INA Insurance ("ACE") had a duty to defend Michelin with respect to an application commenced against Michelin involving its pension plan.  The claim for pension plan refunds did not fall within the CGL.

Michelin North America (Canada) Inc. v. Ace Ina Insurance

[2008] O.J. No. 2328, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, L.A. Pattilo J., June 12, 2008.

Here is a link to an article writen by James Thomson for Bar-Ex news on this decision.

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

The Court held that ING did not owe a duty to defend Roadway Construction Ltd. ("Roadway") with respect to defects and deficiencies in a man-made lake as the underlying action related solely to a claim for economic loss for Roadway's own defective work.  Because the claim related solely to economic loss there was no triggering event such as an accident or occurrence that would bring the loss within the CGL policy.

Roadway Construction Ltd. v. Ing Western Union Insurance Co.

[2008] A.J. No. 664, Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, E.C. Wilson J., June 16, 2008

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

The Automobile Injury Appeal Commission (the "Commission") of Saskatchewan determined that the automobile insurer was estopped from denying benefits to an Insured ("Pipchuk") even though the insured's injuries were not related to an autombile accident.  SGI was estopped from denying benefits because their insured would be unable to claim workers compensation benefits because SGI had intiially paid benefits.  The decision of the appeal commission was overtunred by the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal on the basis that it was mere speculation that the insured would be deprived of the ability to obtain WCB benefits..

Saskatchewan Government Insurance v. Pipchuk,

[2008] S.J. No. 380, Saskatchewn Court of Appeal, R.G. Richards, D.C. Hunter and Y.G.K. Wilkinson JJ.A., June 19, 2008

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

On an application by the automobile Insurer, the Court made a determination prior to trial that an impairment assessment for a "catastrophic impairment" could include a combination of valuations for a variety of injuries, which by themselves did not meet the defintion of catastrophic, but when summed together exceeded the threshold of catastrophic impariment. 

Determination of whether an injury is catastrophic is important for the determination of comensation of injuries suffered in automobile accidents in Ontario.

Arts (Litigation guardian of) v. State Farm Insurance Co. [2008] O.J. No. 2096 Ontario Superior Court of Justice J.R. MacKinnon J. May 28, 2008

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

The court upheld an arbitrator's decision finding that the First Insurer was not entitled to any extension of the 90-day period within which it was required to notify other insurers of any dispute over priority for payment of accident benefits to an injured cyclist.  Cary Schneider wrote an interesting article on the importance of limitation periods in priorty disputes: Priorty Disputes and the Ninety Day Notice Period: No margin for error.  The need for extreme diligence in this situation was also noted by Canadian Underwriter.ca: Insurer needed to inquire immediately in order to gain extensions beyond 90-days.

Echelon General Insurance Co. v. CGU Insurance Co. of Canada [2008] O.J. No. 2224 Ontario Superior Court of Justice T.P. Herman J. June 5, 2008

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