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

A resort operator that contracted services for snow removal brought an application for declaration that its Insurer is obliged to defend the entire action brought by the Plaintiff relating to the failure to remove snow, and the resort's negligence in the management and operation of the resort. The insurer refused to provide a separate or additional defence for the resort as it was defending the snow removal contractor and believed that in doing so it is de facto defending the resort as well. Court found that the insurer had a duty to defend the resort in the snow removal portion, but not in the unrelated claims in the action.

Atlific Hotels and Resorts Ltd v. Aviva Insurance Co. of Canada, [2009] O.J. No. 2005, May 19, 2009, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, E.P. Belobaba J.

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

Manulife, owner of a shopping centre, was a third party in this action. It sought a declaration that the third party Sovereign General Insurance owed a duty to defend in an action commenced against it. Sovereign argued that it did not owe a duty to defend based on Manulife's position as an occupier, persuant to the Occupiers Liability Act.

Liu (Litigation Guardian of) v. Chu, [2009] B.C.J. no. 1138, June 8, 2009, British Columbia Supreme Court, L.D. Russell J.

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

The Defendant Temple Insurance Company sought a rectification of the insurance contract it entered into with Concord Pacific regarding a mixed residential and commercial building complex. Temple was successful in that application.

Concord Pacific Group Inc. v. Temple Insurance Co., [2009] B.C.J. No. 1141, June 9, 2009, British Columbia Supreme Court, V. Gray J.

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

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal overturned the chambers judge's decision that although proposed amendments to the statement of claim were outside the limitation period, they should nonetheless be allowed pursuant to section 20 of Saskatchewan’s Limitation Act which provides an exception to the normal limitation periods.

Cameco Corp. v. Insurance Co. of the State of Pennsylvania, [2008] S.J. No. 244, April 18, 2008, Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, G.R. Jackson, R.G. Richards and D.C. Hunter JJ.A.

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

Where one policy number is issued with respect to a number of family automobiles, the overall policy holder is entitled to notice of cancellation of one of the policies.

Co-Operators General Insurance Co. v. Carter, [2008] A.J. No. 457, April 22, 2008, Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, D.L. Shelley, J.

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

A “mechanical breakdown or derangement” exclusion in an insurance policy refers to an internal problem or defect in a machine, not an external interruption in the machine’s power supply.

Caneast Foods Ltd. v. Lombard General Insurance Co. of Canada, [2008] O.J. No. 1811A, May 9, 2008, Ontario Court of Appeal, M. Rosenberg, S. Borins and G.J. Epstein JJ.A.

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

In deducting no-fault accident benefits from a tort award in a motor vehicle case, a trial judge must estimate the future value of the benefits based on evidence, and not on representations by trial counsel.

McCreight v. Currie, [2008] B.C.J. No. 740, April 3, 2008, British Columbia Court of Appeal, C.M. Huddart, P.D. Lowry and S.D. Frankel JJ.A.

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

The Court found that it could apply the remedial provisions of s. 109 of the Saskatchewan Insurance Act to the requirements of s. 3(3) of the Small Claims Act.

Lamb v. Mennonite Mutual Fire Insurance Co. of Saskatchewan, [2009] S.J. No. 272, April 15, 2009, Saskatchewan Provincial Court, G.T. Seniuk Prov. Ct. J.

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

An Insured was denied indemnity for falsely reporting the value of the vehicle.

Gotsutsov. v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, [2009] B.C.J. No. 1011, May 12, 2009, British Columbia Provincial Court, H. Dhillon Prov. Ct. J.

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

The beneficiary of a life insurance policy was not unjustly enriched, even though she did not pay the premiums, as she was designated the beneficiary pursuant to a separation agreement.

Richardson Estate v. Mew, [2009], O.J. No. 1947, March 25, 2009, Ontario Court of Appeal, K.N. Feldman, E.E. Gillese and P.S. Rouleau JJ.A.

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