The Automobile Injury Compensation Commission may not be able to reconsider a decision to pay accident benefits.
The Court of Appeal upheld the Automobile Injury Compensation Appeal Commission's (the "Commission") decision holding that the Provincial Motor Vehicle Insurer was not entitled to terminate the Insured's income replacement benefits. Since the Commission had previously determined that the insured was entitled to insurance benefits, the Commission could not reconsider the decision several years later.
Shier v. Manitoba Public Insurance Co.  M.J. No. 305 Manitoba Court of Appeal M.A. Monnin, B.M. Hamilton and R.J.F. Chartier JJ.A. September 8, 2008Continue Reading...
A disability insurer cannot set off damages with a right of subrogration. A reimbursement clause may be necessary.
Successful appeal by the Insurer from a decision confirming the Insured's entitlement to past and future disability benefits under a group insurance policy.
This case was summarized in the Lawyers Weekly.
Wilson v. Great-West Life Assurance Co.  N.B.J. No. 303 New Brunswick Court of Appeal J.E. Drapeau C.J.N.B., W.S. Turnbull and A. Deschenes JJ.A. July 31, 2008Continue Reading...
To obtain summary judgement one must show that there are no facts in dispute and the claim has no chance of success.
Unsuccessful application by two Insureds for summary judgment, partial summary judgment or an order limiting the Plaintiff's damages to losses not covered by a builder's all-risk policy that had been issued to the Plaintiff. The court determined that the Plaintiff had satisfied the onus of establishing that the claim had a real chance of success.
Sable Offshore Energy Inc. v. Ameron International Corp.  N.S.J. No. 356 Nova Scotia Supreme Court S.M. Hood J. August 27, 2008Continue Reading...
The Insurer was successful, in part, on its motion for summary judgment to have portions of the Insured's claim against it dismissed. When accident benefit arising under a motor vehicle policy had been aribtrated all aspects of the claim subject to the arbitration are a nullity. In this case only the claims for bad faith and attendant care were not subject to earlier arbitration and could be maintained in a civil action.
Injuries incurred during a robbery involving a motor vehicle are covered by the motor vehicle policy.
The Court found that a motor vehicle used in commission of a robbery falls under use or operation of a motor vehicle when a pedestrian victim is dragged by the shoulder strap of her purse suffering personal injuries after a passenger in a passing van reaches out of the window and grabs it.
Insurer's duty to defend is triggered even if only some allegations are covered claims under the policy. Insurer is not entitled to apportion defence costs if it is impractical to do so between covered and non-covered claims.
A summary of this case also appears at MRB Lawyers blog.
Day v. Wood  O.J. No. 3296 D.A. Wilson, J. August 27, 2008Continue Reading...
Death resulting from huddling and piling must be defined in the policy in order to exclude coverage.
Court finds for insured where definition of industry-specific terms found in exclusion clause not defined in policy.
Fovant Farms Ltd. v. West Elgin Mutual Insurance C.  O.J. No. 3309 Ontario Superior Court of Justice K.J. Brooks Deputy J. July 16, 2008Continue Reading...
If a landlord does not provide a tenant fire insurance he may be able to sue the tenant for damages caused by fire.
The court held that a landlord was not prevented by the terms of Offer to Lease from maintaining an action against its tenant for damages resulting from a fire caused by the tenant’s alleged negligence where there were no provisions of the lease whereby the landlord agreed to provide fire insurance.
A good summary of this case is contained in the law of the land blog.
1044589 Ontario Inc. (c.o.b. Nantucket Business Centre) v. AB Autorama Ltd.  O.J. No. 3006 Ontario Superior Court of Justice R.E. Mesbur J. August 7, 2008Continue Reading...
The court held that a limitation on liability under the Insurance Act did not apply to an employer where its employee was involved in a motor vehicle accident while driving the employer’s vehicle from a training site to a hotel where the employee stayed during a training session. The issue of whether Ms. Jew was working was discussed at James Morton's blog.
Collings v. Jew  O.J. No. 3002 Ontario Superior Court of Justice T.R. Lederer J July 30, 2008Continue Reading...
A condominium director who has knowledge of an illegal suite may be sued if he does not disclose the illegality to the condominium corporation.
The insured (“Boland”) was successful in his appeal from a decision dismissing his application for an order that the insurer (“Allianz”) defend him under a 2005 directors and officers liability policy where it was held that the application judge erred in her characterization of the negligence claims made in the Statement of Claim as derivative.
Boland was a director of a condominum corporation. He was sued in 2005 for negligence. He had knowledge of an illegal suite in 1994. He did not disclose this information to the Board, and was sued in 2005. The Court of Appeal determined that he was entitled to coverage under the insurance policy that was in place in 1994, not 2005.
Boland v. Allianz Insurance Co. of Canada  O.J. No. 3000 Ontario Court of Appeal W.K. Winkler C.J.O., K.N. Feldman J.A. and J.L. Lax J. (ad hoc) July 30, 2008Continue Reading...
Damages to an apartment caused by a tenant's animals may not be covered by the landlord's insurance.
A plaintiff apartment owner (“Cambridge”) was unsuccessful in its application for a determination that the damage to an apartment unit caused by animals was a result of “vandalism”.
A good summary of the case is contained at bar-ex.
Cambridge Realty (Ottawa) Ltd. v. Aviva Insurance Co. of Canada  O.J. No. 3090 Ontario Superior Court of Justice S.J. Kershman J. August 11, 2008.