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

The action by the Insured owner of a condominium against an Insurer under All-Risks Property Damage and Business Interruption policy was allowed in part. The Court held that nine of the claims were subject to only one deductible because they all arose from one occurrence of illegal drug activity. However, separate deductibles attached to each of the other 20 claims because there was insufficient evidence to establish that the grow operations were all part of a co-ordinated effort.

Strata Plan LMS 3904 v. Commonwealth Insurance Co., [2009] B.C.J. No. 909, May 5, 2009, British Columbia Supreme Court, J.C. Grauer J.

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

The application to sever a bad faith issue from the main action regarding entitlement to benefits was allowed as was the application to strike the jury notice for the main action.  The Court held that the matter of entitlement turned on complex contractual interpretation which was inappropriate for a jury and in addition, there was some possibility for prejudice if the actions were not severed because privileged communications would have to be revealed in the defence of the bad faith action.

Rehmat v. Transamerica Life Canada, [2009] B.C.J. No. 738, April 14, 2009, British Columbia Supreme Court, T.M. McEwan J.

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

This was an application for summary judgement by the Plaintiff rental car company. The Defendant refused to compensate the Plaintiff after he had damaged a rental car belonging to it.  The Court held that the waiver declining additional insurance coverage signed by the Defendant was valid.  Damages were awarded to the Plaintiff.

Enterprise Rent-A-Car Canada Ltd. v. Penton, [2009] N.J. No. 73, Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court - Trial Division, April 2, 2009, R.A. Fowler J.

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

Plaintiff Insurance Broker sought a Declaration that it was not liable to pay the Defendants, an insurance company and an insurance broker, premiums for an extension of insurance coverage. The Plaintiff also sought $100,000 in general damages for intentional interference with its economic relations and $50,000 in special damages. Application allowed in part.

 M.B. Kouri Insurance Brokers Ltd. v. R.L. Gougeon Ltd., [2009] O.J. No. 1141, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, February 27, 2009, D.J. Power J.

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

This is an action bought by the Plaintiff homeowners after they were denied coverage by the Defendant insurer for damage to their home caused by a leaky water main. The Court held that the exclusion clause under the policy applied. The claim was dismissed and the Defendant was awarded costs.

Buchanan v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co. , [2009] B.C.J. No. 687, British Columbia Supreme Court, February 12, 2009, E.J. Adair J.

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

This is an appeal from a trial decision dismissing an application for a declaration that the Defendant insurer is obliged to defend the Plaintiff with respect to four different actions. The Court of Appeal held that there was no duty to defend and dismissed the appeal.

Progressive Homes Ltd. v. Lombard General Insurance Co. of Canada, [2009] B.C.J. No. 572, British Columbia Court of Appeal, March 4, 2008, C.A. Ryan, C.M. Huddart and P.A. Kirkpatrick JJ.A.

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