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

The Court granted an insurer’s appeal from a judgment finding that it was liable to its insured under the terms of a broad-form, all-risk policy of insurance, to cover the costs of mould remediation and prevention to an apartment complex owned by the insured.

Minox Equities Ltd. v. Sovereign General Insurance Co., June 16, 2010, Manitoba Court of Appeal, R.J. Scott C.J.M., M.A. Monnin and F.M. Steel JJ.A.

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

The Court dismissed the lessor’s claim against the lessee for the cost of repairs which fell below the deductible amount of the applicable insurance under the terms of a lease.

Westsea Construction Ltd. v. Billedeau, June 3, 2010, British Columbia Provincial Court, H. Dhillon Prov. Ct. J.

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

An appeal from a judgment declaring that an insurance company had a duty to defend its insured for civil assault and battery. The appeal was allowed. The Court of Appeal concluded that there was no duty to defend the respondent.

Meadows v. Meloche Monnex Insurance Brokers Inc., June 2, 2010, Ontario Court of Appeal, E.E. Gillese, S.E. Lang and P.S. Rouleau JJ.A.

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

Application for a declaration that the defendant was entitled to coverage with respect to three claims in negligence as a social host pursuant to the policy held by the strata corporation where he resided .  The application was dismissed.

Economical Mutual Insurance Co. v. Aviva Insurance Co. of Canada, June 4, 2010, British Columbia Supreme Court, I.H. Pitfield J.

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

Statement of Values filled out after the completion of an application for insurance did not form part of the insured's policy of insurance.

Sunburst Skylight Ltd. v. Lloyd's Underwriters, Lloyd's, London,  [2010] B.C.J. No. 963, May 20, 2010, British Columbia Supreme Court, P.G. Voith J.

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

An insurance broker was found liable for failing to advise insured of change in her insurance needs following her moving out from the family home.

Beck Estate v. Johnston, Meier Insurance Agencies Ltd., [2010] B.C.J. No. 972, May 21, 2010, British Columbia Supreme Court, S.A. Griffin J. (In Chambers)

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

An application by two injured motorists to recover their judgment from a statutory fund set up to cover judgments against uninsured or unidentified motorists was denied, as their injuries did not result from the Defendants’ use or operation of a motor vehicle.

Zukowski v. O'Bee, June 21, 2010, Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, E.F. Macklin J.

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

A Girlfriend of insured is not spouse or dependent for purposes of unidentified driver provisions of an insurance policy.

Pepe v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., [2010] O.J. No. 2138, May 20, 2010, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, D.A. Wilson J.

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

Pushing a motorcycle during a course was found to be an ordinary and well-known use of a motor vehicle.

V-Twin Motorcycle School Ltd. V. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, [2010] B.C.J. No. 960, January 29, 2010, British Columbia Supreme Court, B. Brown J. (In Chambers)

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

Action for damages for breach of an insurance policy dismissed. The insured vehicle was parked in a Kal Tire parking lot when it was stolen. The insurance policy did not cover losses for stored vehicles when they are parked on a "highway". The Kal Tire parking lot was found to be a "highway" as that term is defined in the policy and as it has been interpreted in the case law.

0724969 B.C. Ltd. (c.o.b. Wholesale Auto Direct) v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, [2010] B.C.J. No. 865, May 11, 2010, British Columbia Supreme Court, T.W. Bowden J.

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

A vessel was found to be a "waterborne object" for purposes of "windstorm or hail" exclusion clause.

Thorburn Wharf Fisheries Ltd. v. ING Insurance Co. of Canada, [2010] N.S.J. No. 296, January 7, 2010, Nova Scotia Supreme Court, J.D. Murphy J.

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

Insurer's motion for dismissal of a third party claim against it was allowed. The insured's claim for indemnity was premature and was struck out. The claim against the insured, a tenant, by the landlord, did not trigger the duty to defend. The landlord's claim clearly arose in respect to the tenant's actions and omissions with respect to non-compliance with the lease and was excluded under the policy. The allegations in the claim could not be so broadly read as supporting an allegation of negligence that would trigger the duty to defend.

Sandringham Holdings Ltd. v. Shoeless Joe's Enterprises Inc., April 21, 2010, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, B.A. Allen J.

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