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

The issue before the Court was whether the theft of the Plaintiff’s vehicle by the dealer that the Plaintiff had a consignment agreement with was excluded under her automobile policy. The Court held that the exclusion applied.

Do v. Nieswandt 2009 ABQB 43.  Alberta Queen's Bench.  January 22, 2009.  McLeod J.

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

Appeal by Wawanesa from a declaration that it was obliged to defend and indemnify an automobile policy holder who had an accident while in contravention of her G1 licence which required that she be accompanied by a fully licensed driver at all times when driving.

Becamon v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co. 2009 ONCA 113 ONCA.  February 6, 2009, Ontario Court of Appeal.  MacPherson, Laskin, Armstrong J.J.A.

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

This was a summary trial regarding the Crown’s right to recover the costs of health services provided to persons injured in a motor vehicle accident involving a city employee. The Court held that the Crown was not able to recover these costs as the City of Edmonton fell under an exemption outlined in s. 62(3) of the Hospitals Act.

Alberta v. Edmonton (City) 2009

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

Excess insurer required to contribute to defence cost of its insured.

American Home Assurance Co. v. Temple Insurance Co. [2009] O.J. No. 249 Ontario Superior Court of Justice I.A. MacDonnell J. January 22, 2009

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

Lombard Canada Limited, whose policy on the Insured expired two months prior to an accident, was found to be liable to pay benefits as it was the first insurer in receipt of a benefits application.  Under a no-fault statutory insurance scheme, whereby an insured party is entitled to compensation for a portion or financial loss regardless of fault, Lombard should have paid the appropriate benefits to the claimants, then make reasonable investigations within the 90 day period to determine whether another insurer was liable. 

Lombard Canada Ltd. v. Royal and SunAlliance Insurance Co. [2008] O.J.  No.  5239 Ontario Superior Court of Justice G.R. Strathy, J. December 19, 2008

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

The Plaintiff, Golic, was injured in an motor vehicle accident in 1995.  He received benefits for a period of time, and in 2000, ING Insurance, on behalf of its predecessor company, Guardian Insurance Company of Canada, sent Golic a detailed letter denying further benefits.  In 2008, Golic applied to the Superior Court of Justice for an Order permitting him to amend his Statement of Claim, arguing the running of the limitation period does not apply in his case because the Insurer failed to provide a layman’s explanation of its denial of benefits.  The Motion was dismissed.

Golic v. ING Insurance Co. of Canada [2008] O.J.  No.  5408 Ontario Superior Court of Justice M.G.J. Quigley, J. December 29, 2008

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

The Plaintiff, Kitchenham, was successful in her action against her insurer who tried to compel the production of an IME report and video taped surveillance of her that was obtained through the discovery process in a previous, but related action. 

Kitchenham v. Axa Insurance Canada [2008] O.J. No. 5413 Ontario Court of Appeal D.H. Doherty, E.A. Cronk, R. Juriansz, JJ.A. December 24, 2008

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