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

The B.C. Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal for future care costs awarded to the plaintiff  finding the trial  judge's assessment reasonable. The Court also declined to interfere with a nominal deduction of $1,000 for possible statutory no-fault benefits payable to the plaintiff in the future.

Uhrovic v. Masjhuri [2008] B.C.J. No. 2191 British Columbia Court of Appeal C.A. Ryan, R.J. Bauman and H. Groberman JJ.A. November 17, 2008

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

The Court does not interfere with an arbitrator's decision that an insurance policy had been properly terminated.

Lombard Canada v. Kent & Essex Mutual Insurance Co. [2008] O.J. No. 4314 Ontario Superior Court of Justice R.W.M. Pitt J. October 30, 2008

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

Appellant insured's  criminal conviction for intentionally setting fire on his property establishes a successful prima facie case by insurer at trial and shifts the burden to the insured to show a genuine issue for trial.

Ecclesiastical Insurance Office plc v. Michaud [2008] M.B.J. No. 387 Manitoba Court of Appeal M.A. Monnin, R.J.F. Chartier and A.D. MacInnes JJ.A. November 13, 2008

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

Farm Credit Canada ("FCC") was successful in its application for an order adding it as a plaintiff to an action against an insurer where the Court found that FCC was first loss payee on certain loans made to the original plaintiff and held that FCC's breach of contract claim was not statute-barred.

Stomp Pork Farm Ltd. v. Lombard General Insurance Co. of Canada [2008] S.J. No. 613 Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench R. K. Ottenbreit J. October 7, 2008.

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

Saskatchewan's Automobile Accident Insurance Act bars a claim for damages against physiotherapists where the original injuries arose out of or stemmed from a motor vehicle accident.

Hill v. Saskatchewan Government Insurance [2008] S.J. No. 662 Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench R.L. Barclay J. October 23, 2008

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

A young boy was killed in a motor veicle accident while being supervised by his father and grandfather.  A claim was commenced against the driver of the motor vehicle and the father and grandfather and all parties were found to be negligent.  The father and grandfather brought an action against their motor vehicle insurer for contribution.  The claim was dismissed on the basis that their negligence did not arise from the care and use of an automobile. 

Kopas v. Western Assurance Co. [2008] O.J. No. 4057 Ontario Superior Court of Justice D. L. Corbett J. October 15, 2008

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

In an all-risk property insurance policy "settlement exclusion" excludes earth settlement caused by natural causes only.

Engle Estate v. Aviva Insurance Co. of Canada [2008] A.J. No. 1193 Alberta Court of Queen's Bench G.C. Hawco J. October 21, 2008

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

The Court concluded that Manitoba Health did not owe the plaintiff contractual or fiduciary duty of care under the province's health legislation; however, it owed the plaintiff a private law duty of care in compliance with statutory obligations and established policies and guidelines.

Lewycky v. Government of Manitoba 2008 M.J. No. 390 Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench D.P. Bryk, J November 6, 2008

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

Canadian National Railway Co. v. Royal and Sun Alliance Insurance Co. of Canada [2008] S.J.C. No. 67 Supreme Court of Canada McLachlin C.J., and Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Abella, Charron and Rothstein JJ November 21, 2008.

I know this is out of date, but this is a nice summary of 10 interesting canadian insurance coverage decisions from 2007.  It also discusses the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in CNR v. Royal & Sun Alliance Insurnace Co. in which was recently reviewed by our Supreme Court.

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

An insured is entitled to coverage under an all risk policy against the possibility that a product design might fail even though not improper or faulty according to the state of the art.

Canadian National Railway Co. v. Royal and Sun Alliance Insurance Co. of Canada [2008] S.J.C. No. 67 Supreme Court of Canada McLachlin C.J., and Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Abella, Charron and Rothstein JJ November 21, 2008.

This case has also been summarized in Business Insurance, and the Lawyers Weekly,

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

The application by an individual injured in a motor vehicle accident ("Wafler") for a declaration that he was entitled to further disability benefits was dismissed where the Court held that Wafler was precluded from working as a result of an injury caused, directly or indirectly, by sickness or disease which pre-existed the accident and thus an exclusion in the Regulations applied.

Wafler v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia [2008] B.C.J. No. 1962 British Columbia Supreme Court I. C. Meiklem J. October 20, 2008

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

The application for the interpretation of the limits of liability of an insurance policy held by the Real Estate Council of Ontario to cover losses of consumer deposits was allowed in part where the Court held that 22 of the 25 transactions reviewed were separate "occurrences"  as they involved different victims and different properties.

Simpson (Receiver of) v. Lloyd's Underwriters [2008] O.J. No. 3919 Ontario Superior Court of Justice S. N. Lederman J. October 8, 2008

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

The Appeal by an insurer from an allocation of 95% of the costs of the insured's defence in a wrongful dismissal and malicious prosecution action to the insurer was dismissed where the court held that incidental assistance that the defence of the covered claim provided for the uncovered claim was not relevant to the determination of the insurer's liability for costs incurred by the insured for the defence of the claim.

Hanis v. Teevan [2008] O.J. No. 3909 Ontario Court of Appeal D. H. Doherty, R. J. Sharpe and E. E. Gillese JJ.A. October 8, 2008

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

The Defendant insurer brought a motion to dismiss an action concerning a cancellation clause written into an agreement via Summary Judgment.

There was ambiguity, and the issue dealt with conflicting evidence and therefore ought to go to trial. 

Ajax (Town) v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co. [2008] O.J. No. 3660 Ontario Superior Court of Justice  D.A. Wilson, J. September 22, 2008

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

This dispute between insurers under Ontario's Regulation 283/95 queries whether an arbitrator can decide if, at first instance, the one year limitation period under the Regulations applies.  The Judge found the arbitrator can decide questions of law and jurisdiction.

ING Insurance Co. of Canada v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia [2008] O.J. No. 3759 Ontario Superior Court of Justice G. Trotter J. September 17, 2008

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