Insurer established Insured committed arson thereby depriving Insured recovery under the policy.
Performance Factory Inc. v. Atlantic Insurance Co. Limited, [2010] N.J. No. 78 (S.C), March 3, 2010, Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court - Trial Division, R.P. Whalen J.
Continue Reading...Insured covered under automobile policy issued to common law spouse for an accident involving an uninsured van.
Faulds v. O'Connor, [2010] N.S.J. No. 67, February 12, 2010, Nova Scotia Supreme Court, P. Bryson J.
Continue Reading...An action by the insured for payment under a hail insurance policy asking that the amount of loss as determined by the Umpire be set aside and a new amount inserted was dismissed as the court found that a statutory condition of the Saskatchewan Insurance Act was binding on the insured.
Debalinhard v. Butler Byers Hail Insurance Ltd., [2010] S.J. No. 57, February 10, 2010, Saskatchewan Provincial Court (Civil Division), R. Green, Prov. Ct J.
Continue Reading...The applicant sought an order requiring RBC General Insurance to defend him in a claim arising from the applicant hitting a third party in the eye with a glass. The judge dismissed the application citing the true nature of the pleadings was that the applicant deliberately and with full knowledge of his actions hit the third party in the eye resulting in an intentional assault, which was not covered under the policy.
Makowchik v. RBC General Insurance Co., [2010] O.J. No. 533, February 2, 2010, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, A. Pollak J.
Continue Reading...Intact Insurance Company was unsuccessful in seeking a declaration that it was required to defend an action for direct damage only, and that it was not obliged to defend or indemnify for damages relating to consequential damage, as the court held that it was not clear whether the loss would be found to be a direct physical loss or damage, or whether the exclusion for liability for consequential damage would apply.
Intact Insurance Co. v. Keith Hart Holdings Ltd., [2010] B.C.J. No. 281, February 18, 2010, British Columbia Supreme Court, G.D. Burnyeat J. In Chambers
Continue Reading...Appeal by insurer from an order requiring it to defend the insured in a third party proceeding was dismissed. Chambers judge correctly concluded that the statement of claim should be considered in the determination of whether a duty to defend arose. Since the Statement of Claim alleged negligence arising from the insured’s use and operation of a motor-vehicle the insurer was obligated to defend the allegations.
Tarrabain v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co., [2010] A.J. No. 50, January 8, 2010, Alberta Court of Appeal, P.T. Costigan, K.G. Ritter JJ.A. and R.P. Belzil J.
Continue Reading...Appeal from a provincial court decision finding that the insured had a right of indemnification against I.C.B.C. for the cost of repairing damage to its motor-vehicle was dismissed. The provincial court judge did not err in finding that s. 68(1) of the Insurance( Motor Vehicle) Act (the “Act”) applied only to multi-car accidents. Further, even if the judge had erred in this regard, I.C.B.C. failed to prove it was prejudiced by the alleged breach, as is required by s. 136(b) of the Revised Regulation under the Act.
Insurance Corp of British Columbia v. Pariah Productions Inc., [2010] B.C.J. No. 206, Febrtuary 5, 2010, British Columbia Supreme Court, A.H. Silverman, J.
Continue Reading...The action by an owner of a fleet of ships ("More Marine") against its Insurers and its insurance broker was dismissed where the Court found that a deductible clause allowing a deductible to be charged for the constructive total loss of a vessel was included in the insurance contract and that More Marine knew and agreed to the inclusion of this deductible clause in the contract.
More Marine Ltd. v. Axa Pacific Insurance Co., [2010] B.C.J. No. 109, January 22, 2010, British Columbia Supreme Court, M.D. Macaulay J.
Continue Reading...The action by an operator of a refrigerated warehouse ("Versacold") against an Insurer under a multi-peril subscription policy ("Commonwealth") was dismissed where the Court held that damage to stock in the refrigerated warehouse was caused by leakage of refrigerant which resulted from wear and tear.
Versacold Corp. v. Zurich Insurance Co., [2010] B.C.J. No. 30, January 11, 2010, British Columbia Supreme Court, W.G. Baker J.
Continue Reading...
Mike has represented clients in personal injury cases with a emphasis on brain injuries, defended lawyers and physicians from malpractice allegations,...More...
Jonathan co-chairs Harper Grey's Engineering and Construction Law Group and has represented clients in cases involving construction, insurance and he...More...
Emily practices in the areas of insurance, construction, and health law. Her insurance practice includes general insurance defence, coverage litigati...More...
Daniel practices health law, insurance litigation and defamation law for Harper Grey. Since becoming an associate in 2009, he has assisted senior cou...More...
As the latest addition to Harper Grey's insurance group, Ryan is an associate in the practice of commercial,health and insurance company law. He join...More...Enter keywords:
