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

An action by a homeowner ("Cole") against her insurer ("Aviva") was allowed in part where Cole was entitled to damages resulting from the failed sale of her property based on misrepresentations by the insurance adjuster that her property was being completely cleaned up.

Cole v. Aviva Insurance Co. of Canada, [2010] N.J. No. 149, April 21, 2010, Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court - Trial Division, R.M. Hall J.

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

The appeal by Lombard Canada from a decision that a motor vehicle rented by a third party from Choice Rental was not covered by optional insurance issued by Zurich Insurance pursuant to a fleet insurance endorsement was allowed where the court held that a description of each vehicle was not necessary in the fleet insurance context for compliance purposes.

Lombard Canada Ltd. v. Zurich Insurance Co., [2010] O.J. No. 1645, April 22, 2010, Ontario Court of Appeal, E.A. Cronk, S.E. Lang and R.G. Juriansz JJ.A.

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

The applications by Frank Dunn ("Dunn") and Douglas Beatty ("Beatty") against Chubb Insurance Co. of Canada ("Chubb") for a defence cost allocation was allowed and Chubb was ordered to pay 90% of the defence costs of Dunn and Beatty to the policy limits.

Dunn v. Chubb Insurance Co. of Canada, [2010] O.J. No. 1669, April 23, 2010, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, D.R. Cameron J.

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

The court held that private automobile insurance carried by the renter of a vehicle was not “available insurance” in respect of the action, as there were no claims made against the renter which would require his insurance to respond.

Enterprise Rent-a-Car Canada Ltd. v. Meloche Monnex Financial Services Inc., [2010] O.J. No. 1498, April 15, 2010, Ontario Court of Appeal, R.J. Sharpe, P.S. Rouleau and G.J. Epstein JJ.A.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The plaintiff’s application for summary judgment was successful in part where the court held that the loss of 10% of packaged materials was property damage caused by an accident or occurrence, when the product was lost because it had to be repackaged due to a defect in the packaging supplied by the plaintiff insured.

Bulldog Bag Ltd. v. Axa Pacific Insurance Co., [2010] B.C.J. No. 600, April 1, 2010, British Columbia Supreme Court, P.J. Pearlman J.

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