Insureds were denied coverage on a home insurance policy for failing to advise the Insurer that their tenants had moved out and not returned the keys.
Wu v. Gore Mutual Insurance Co., [2009] O.J. No. 5201, December 2, 2009, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, M.J. Nolan J.
Continue Reading...Insured's appeal of a finding that his long-term disability policy was void for material misrepresentation was dismissed.
Fernandes v. RBC Life Insurance Co., [2009] O.J. No. 5240, December 8, 2009, Ontario Court of Appeal, E.A. Cronk, S.E. Lang and R.G. Juriansz JJ.A.
Continue Reading...A restaurant joined as a third party by the Defendant insurance company sought a summary judgment under Rule 22 of the New Brunswick Rules of Court. Granting the motion the judge held that based on the evidence the restaurent had fulfilled the requirements placed on a commercial host under the circumstances and did not see any reason to doubt the claim against the restaurant would be dismissed at trial.
Feaver Estate v. Briggs, [2009] N.B.J. No. 371, November 12, 2009, New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, D.H. Russell J
Continue Reading...The insured Plaintiff brought a motion that he not be required to pay attendance money in order to conduct an oral examination for discovery of a knowledgeable person produced by the Defendant. The Defendant insurance company argued unsuccessfully that it did not reside in Manitoba and its designated knowledgeable person was in Vancouver.
MacAngus v. Royal and Sunalliance Insurance Co. of Canada, [2009] M.J. No. 382, October 30, 2009, Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, M. Kaufman J.
Continue Reading...The insureds' action against its insurance broker for breach of its duty of care was allowed. The broker did not fully explain to the insured the limitations of the policy that they had purchased.
Sampson v. AA Munro Insurance, [2009] N.S.J. No. 493, September 14, 2009, Nova Scotia Small Claims Court, Adjudicator E.K. Slone
Continue Reading...An appeal by insurer from a finding that it was responsible for coverage of damages arising from a motor-vehicle accident was allowed. The trial judge had erred by failing to consider s. 114 of the Insurance Act R.S.N.S. 1989 c. 231 and the prevailing jurisprudence, which holds that if an operator drives an owner's vehicle with the consent of the owner, the owner's insurance will respond to any claim for damages.
Royal & Suh Alliance v. Baltzer, [2009] N.S.J. No. 505, November 4, 2009, Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, J.W.S. Saunders, L.L. Oland and J.E. Fichaud J.J.A.
Continue Reading...Enter keywords:
