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

The application by a motor vehicle insurer ("Dominion") seeking an order that an action be tried by a judge alone was allowed where the court held that the most important issues to be determined would be questions of law.

Kirby v. Dominion of Canada General Insurance Co., [2010] N.S.J. No. 656, December 13, 2010, Nova Scotia Supreme Court, C.E. Haliburton J.

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

Application for summary judgment by the superintendent of Financial Services Commission of Ontario dismissing the claim of the plaintiff on the basis that the plaintiff was an insured person for the purposes of coverage under an automobile policy and was thus not entitled to seek payment of any judgment rendered in her favour out of the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund (the "Fund"). The Ontario Superior Court of Justice (the "Court") held that the plaintiff was an insured person for the purposes of coverage under the optional Family Protection Coverage Endorsement (“OPCF 44R”) and as such had no recourse to payment out of the Fund.

Graham v. Ontario (Superintendent, Financial Services Commission), [2010] O.J. No. 5602, December 21, 2010, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, K.B. Corrick J.

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

 The petition by a number of members of a strata council (the "Insureds") for a declaration that Great American Insurance Co. (the "Insurer") was required to provide them with a defence to an action commenced by an owner of a unit in the strata ("Oldaker") was dismissed where the court found that all of the claims against the Insured were excluded as they had previously been made in proceedings initiated by Oldaker prior to the policy period.

Coleman v. Great American Insurance Co., [2010] B.C.J. No. 2514, December 14, 2010, British Columbia Supreme Court, P.M. Willcock J.

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

This case concerns the priority as between insurers.

At issue was whether a car loaned to the customer of a car dealership while his vehicle was being repaired was a "loaner" or a rental car.  If it was a rental car, the customer's insurer would be the primary insurer responsible for the loss.

The insurer of the car dealership was found to be the primary insurer with respect to collision damages. There was no written agreement between the car dealership and its customer pertaining to the use of the vehicle and no real terms of use for the vehicle.

Coachman Insurance Co. v. Lombard General Insurance Co. of Canada, [2011] O.J. No. 1236, March 23, 2011, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, M.J. Quigley J.

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

An action by insureds to recover the proceeds from a fire insurance policy from their insurer after a fire, as well as aggravated and punitive damages for the insurer's refusal to pay. The action was allowed.

Sidhu v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co. [2011] B.C.J. No. 1573, August 17, 2011, British Columbia Supreme Court, T.C. Armstrong J.

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