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

Aviva Insurance applied under Rule 18A to have an action against it by Wingtat Game Bird Packers dismissed, or in the alternative, to determine the extent of the coverage for the loss.  The application was dismissed and Aviva was required to cover the full loss suffered by Wingtat. 

Wingtat Game Bird Packers (1993) Ltd. v. Aviva Insurance Co. of Canada [2008] B.C.J. No. 1379 British Columbia Supreme Court A.F. Wilson, J.  July 21, 2008

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

A contractor - AniWall created a foundation using faulty concrete.  The Ontario Supreme Court determined that the contractor was entitled to coverage under a CGL Policy.  The insurance company, AXA, appealed.  AXA sought to limit its liability by relying on two separate Exclusionary clauses within a Commercial General Liability insurance policy. 

The Court of Appeal rejected the "Your Work" exclusion in the policy holding that the concrete supplier was an insured "Sub-Contractor" of the Respondent contractor Ani-Wall, and rejected the "Rip and Tear" exclusion as being incomprehensible. 

The Daily Commercial News and Construction Record provides a summary of this decision, as does the Canadian Underwriter.

AXA Insurance (Canada) v. Ani-Wall Concrete Forming Inc. [2008] O.J. No. 2843 Ontario Court of Appeal D.H. Doherty, M.J. Moldaver and E.A. Cronk, JJ.A. July 18, 2008

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

Jessy's Pizza, a small business owner, was successful in its action against Economical Mutual Insurance ("Economical") for business interruption coverage following a vandalized oil supply line that had leaked under its building causing extensive damage.

Jessy's Pizza (Bedford) v. Economical Mutual Insurance Co. [2008] N.S.J. No. 319 Nova Scotia Small Claims Court Adjudicator J.W.S. Johnston January 31, 2008

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

The Plaintiff was partially successful in his action against his insurance company , British Aviation, in being found a "person insured" pursuant to a clause in the policy, thus triggering the duty to defend.  The Plaintiff was awarded costs in the action but the insurer was free to retain counsel of their choice to represent the Plaintiff.

Zaporzan v. British Aviation Insurance Group (Canada) Ltd. [2008] M.J. No. 267 Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench J.J. Oliphant, A.C.J.Q.B. July 8, 2008

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

Recent evidence suggests that insurance lawsuits are increasing outside of the U.S.  U.S.A. today has an article in which Lloyd's of London CEO Richard Ward answers questions from management reporter Del Jones.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The court concluded that the insurer had no duty to defend the applicant in  a personal injury claim as the CGL policy contained an exclusion clause in respect of bodily injury sustained as a result of ownership, use or operation of a motor vehicle.

TR Construction Ltd. v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co. [2008] M.J. No. 243 Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, Winnipeg Centre G.D. Joyal, J. June 23, 2008

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

Appeal by the plaintiffs from a decision finding that the respondent insurer was under no liability in respect of an accident that occurred in Florida was dismissed as the Newfoundland and Labrador legislation limited recovery for personal injury caused by uninsured drivers in another jurisdiction to the minimum amount required in that other jurisdiction.

Kennedy v. CGU Insurance Co. of Canada [2008] N.J. No. 182 Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court - Court of Appeal B.G. Welsh. M. Rowe and L.D. Barry JJ.A. June 26, 2008.

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

The defendant insurer denied the plaintiff’s application for long-term disability benefits on the grounds that the plaintiff had misrepresented his medical condition on the initial application questionnaire. The court accepted the defendant’s evidence that it would not have written the policy had the plaintiff’s medical history been disclosed and dismissed the case.

Fernandes v. RBC Life Insurance Co. [2008] O.J. No. 2726 Ontario Superior Court of Justice S. Chapnik, J. July 8, 2008

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