An owner of a property could be liable for the negligence act of their property manager.

Based upon the interpretation of a Property Management Agreement (the "PMA") the Court held that an Owner was responsible for damages sustained by the plaintiff as a result of slip and fall caused by the negligence of the Property Manager.

Wight v. T.G.S. Properties Ltd.  [2008] A.J. No. 1366 Alberta Court of Queen's Bench J.M. Ross J. December 4, 2008

 

Continue Reading...

An insured suffering from a mental disorder may be entitled to insurance coverage despite an intentional act exclusion.

The appeal of RBC General Insurance Co. ("RBC") from a decision requiring it to pay the owner of a motor vehicle ("Sekhon") for collision damage under her automobile insurance policy was dismissed where the court upheld the trial judge's finding that an acute psychiatric disorder suffered by Sekhon's daughter negated her ability to consciously or deliberately control the vehicle and that damage to the vehicle fell within the meaning of "direct and accidental loss" under section 7.1.1 of the Standard Ontario Automobile Policy. 

Sekhon v. RBC General Insurance Co. [2008] O.J. No. 4999 Ontario Superior Court of Justice  M. E. Marshman, C. D. Aitken and K. E. Swinton JJ November 28, 2008

Continue Reading...

If a broker fails to obtain full coverage for all eventualities for an insured the broker could be liable for damages.

The plaintiff developer's application for summary judgment against the defendant insurance brokers was allowed where the Court held that the insurance brokers failed to ensure that the insurance obtained provided full coverage, as instructed by the plaintiff.

 

Pointe of View Developments Inc. v. Cannon & McDonald Ltd [2008] A.J. No. 1285 Alberta Court of Queen's Bench Master J.B. Hanebury November 18, 2008
 
Continue Reading...

Earnings can be deducted from an income replacement policy, even if the insured receives the income without doing any work.

The appeal by the Saskatchewan Government Insurance ("SGI") from a decision of the Automobile Injury Appeal Commission (the "Commission") directing SGI to continue paying income replacement benefits to Epp, a farmer injured in a 1998 automobile accident, was allowed where the Court concluded that SGI was entitled to take into account income that Epp received from his partnership but did not actually earn by doing work.

\Saskatchewan Government Insurance v. Epp [2008] S.J. No. 800 Saskatchewan Court of Appeal  J. Klebuc C.J.S., N.W. Sherstobitoff and J.G. Lane, JJ.A. December 15, 2008

Continue Reading...

To be entitled to disability benefits an insured must be under the care of a phsyciain, even if there is no medical purpose for the treatment.

An unsuccessful appeal by an insured from a trial judgment dismissing her action for payment of disability benefits on the basis that she was not under the care of a physician, as required by the policy, during the period at issue.

Andreychuk v. RBC Life Ins. Co. [2008] B.C.J. 2307 British Columbia Court of Appeal R.T.A. Low, P.D. Lowry and E.C. Chiasson JJ.A. November 28, 2008.

Continue Reading...

A wife may not be entitled to benefits under her husband's life insurance policy if the husband's former wife is the named beneficiary.

The Applicant, who was the second wife of the deceased, sought, unsuccessfully, a declaration that she was entitled to proceeds of the deceased’s life insurance policy. The Respondent was the deceased’s first wife and the named beneficiary under the policy.

Ferguson v. Mew [2008] O.J. No. 4892 Ontario Superior Court of Justice Strathy J. October 14, 2008.

 

Continue Reading...

The common law does not necessarily preclude an independent claim for funds paid by the insurer, even when the insured has resolved his or her claim in an earlier lawsuit.

A successful application by the Plaintiff to amend the pleadings to assert that a third party, an insurer who had indemnified them, was advancing a claim against the remaining defendant insurers on a subrogated basis. The Defendants made an unsuccessful cross-application for summary dismissal on the basis that because the Plaintiff had been indemnified the action was spent.

Cameco Corp. v. Insurance Co. of the State of Pennsylvania [2008] S.J. No. 731 Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench McMurtry J November 18, 2008.

Continue Reading...

In an insurance policy the obligation to defend an insured is broader than the obligation to indemnify.

The Applicants, who were in the house moving business successfully applied for a declaration that their insurer had a duty to defend them against an action for damages that allegedly occurred in the course of moving a home belonging to a third party.

601260 Saskatchewan Ltd. v. ING Insurance Co. of Canada  [2008] S.J. No. 730 Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench J.A. Ryan-Froslie J. November 19, 2008

 

Continue Reading...