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

An application by the insurer seeking summary judgment on the grounds that there was no genuine issue for trial was dismissed. Although the insured was not in technical compliance with the proof of loss procedure, the issue of whether the insurer was prejudiced by the insureds actions remained. There were triable issues raised by the facts and the law.

Louis Jones Construction Ltd. v. Royal & Sunalliance Insurance Co. of Canada, [2009] O.J. No. 4721, November 2, 2009, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Master C.U.C. MacLeod

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

An application by the insurer for a delcaration that it had no duty to defend or indemnify the insured and his son was dismissed in part. There was no coverage for the son, as he was an excluded driver under the policy. Although the son was an 'excluded driver' under the policy the evidence did not establish that the insurer took all appropriate steps to make sure that the insured understood the implications of having his son listed as an excluded driver. Therefore, a trial of an issue was directed on the 'excluded driver' endorsement. Further, there was also no evidence that the insured's son drove the car without the insured's consent or that the insured allowed his son to drive while he was unauthorized by law to do so.

Traders General Insurance Co. v. McCubbin, [2009] O.J. No. 4478, October 28, 2009, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, E.P. Belobaba J.

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

The motion by the Lawyers Professional Indemnity Company ("LawPro") for an order striking the fourth party claim of a law clerk ("Rosso") was allowed where the Court held that Rosso had no cause of action against LawPro as he had no contractual relationship with Lawpro and LawPro did not owe him a duty of care.

1013952 Ontario Inc. (c.o.b. Silverado Restaurant and Nightclub) v. Sakinofsky, [2009] O.J. No. 4158, October 8, 2009, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, H.M. Pierce J.

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

An application alleging lack of jurisdiction was dismissed where the court found that Saskatchewan was the more appropriate forum to try an action that involved the interpretation of an insurance contract made in Saskatchewan between Saskatchewan parties using Saskatchewan law and where the relevant evidence and witnesses were in Saskatchewan.

Saskatchewan Mutual Insurance Co. v. Homegrown Advertising Inc., [2009] S.J. No. 596, September 15, 2009, Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, G.M. Currie J.

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

The action by a homeowner ("Cirillo") against his insurer ("Wawanesa") for outstanding monies sought by a contractor who performed repairs on Cirillo's home after it was damaged by fire was dismissed where the court found that Wawanesa had no contractual relationship with the contractor and had fulfilled all of its obligations to Cirillo under the policy.

TGA General Contracting v. Cirillo, [2009] O.M. No. 4377, October 15, 2009, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, G.P. DiTomaso J.

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

The City of Penticton ("Penticton") was successful in obtaining an order declaring that it was an insured under a policy of insurance issued by AXA Pacific Insurance Co. ("AXA") and that AXA was liable under that policy to indemnify the City against all costs and expenses incurred by the City in defending four actions (the "MVA Claims") arising from a motor vehicle accident which occurred at an intersection under construction.

Penticton (City) v. AXA Pacific Insurance Co., [2009] B.C.J. No. 2021, October 14, 2009, British Columbia Supreme Court, K.M. Ker J.

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

The Plaintiff sought a declaration that Insurance Corporation of British Columbia was liable to indemnify him for loss to his vehicle resulting from a fire. Because the fire resulted from a mechanical failure, a statutory exclusion clause applied to exclude coverage.

Swailes v. Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, [2009] B.C.J. No. 1928, September 28, 2009, British Columbia Supreme Court, P.J. Pearlman J.

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

A third party service provider sought to recover payment directly from an insurer for services provided to insured persons under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule. The service provider was unable to establish that any exception to the doctrine of privity was contemplated by the provisions of the Insurance Act.

MedCentra Inc. v. Economical Mutual Insurance Co., [2009] O.J. No. 4003, August 14, 2009, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, L.B. Roberts J.

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