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

The appeal by an insurer ("Ecclesiastical") from a declaration that an insurance broker ("Kouri") had no liability for premiums received for an extension of insurance was allowed where the court held that by unilaterally sending out certificates of insurance, the broker had created valid contracts of insurance.

M.B. Kouri Insurance Brokers Ltd. v. R.L. Gougeon, [2010] O.J. No. 5584, December 22, 2010, Ontario Court of Appeal, J.C. MacPherson, R.G. Juriansz and J.L. MacFarland JJ.A.

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

In this case, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal considered a number of issues surrounding payments that Saskatchewan Government Insurance had made to the mother of a brain-injured infant as "income-replacement," to allow her to stay home and care for her daughter.

SGI had attempted to characterize these payments as "ex gratia", and argued that it had no obligation to continue them.

The Automobile Injury Appeal Commission (the "Commission") disagreed, holding that the payments must have been authorized under the relevant legislation, as "you can't spend money you are not authorized to spend."

The appeal by SGI from a decision of the Commission ordering SGI to pay income replacement benefits to the mother of an injured child was dismissed where the Commission properly concluded that benefits paid to the mother were covered by Personal Injury Benefits Regulations and were not merely ex gratia payments.

Saskatchewan Government Insurance v. Becker, [2011] S.J. No. 154, February 23, 2011, Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, R.G. Richards, G.A. Smith and R.K. Ottenbreit JJ.A.

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

 A covenant to insure contained in a contract of bailment does not act as a bar to subrogation against the bailor with respect to damage to the bailed property.

Kruger Products Ltd. v. First Choice Logistics Inc., [2010] B.C.J. No. 2333, November 26, 2010, British Columbia Supreme Court, G.D. Burnyeat J.

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

Exclusion clauses must contemplate the exact cause of property damage.  That was the message delivered by the Saskatchewan Provincial Court after a homeowner commenced an action against the insurer for failure to provide coverage for water damage.  The damage occurred after the homeowner removed an exterior pipe that distributed run-off water away from the home.  The insurer argued that the loss was excluded from coverage. The Court held that none of the standard form exclusion clauses contained in the insurance policy contemplated the exact peril that caused the loss. Judgment was granted against the insurer.

Wagner v. Saskatchewan Government Insurance, [2011] S.J. No. 10, January 5, 2011, Saskatchewan Provincial Court (Civil Division), B.M. Singer Prov. Ct. J.

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