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

In a claim under a policy of property insurance where the value of the loss far exceeded the limits of the policy, it was determined that the plaintiff had no reason to exaggerate the value of the loss on the final proof of loss and the policy was not void due to intentional misrepresentation. The plaintiff's claim for punitive damages was also dismissed.

Sagl v. Chubb Insurance Co. of Canada 2011 ONSC 5233, September 8, 2011, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, F.N. Marrocco J.

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

A defendant in four separate motor vehicle actions resulting from the same action had been defended by counsel retained by his insurer.  The insurer paid out its limits in full settlement of three of the claims and partial settlement of the fourth.  The fourth action was to continue against the defendant and the lawyer applied to get off the record.  The court granted the order, holding that to require insurers to continue to defend an action against their insured after paying out the policy limits would discourage settlement of actions.

Dominion of Canada General Insurance Co. v. Kingsway General Insurance Co. [2011] O.J. No. 811, February 24, 2011, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, H.S. Arrell J.

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

The appeal by an insurer ("Sovereign") was dismissed. The Court found that the notice provided to Sovereign by a co-defendant of the bankrupt insured was sufficient notice in accordance with the policy conditions for liability coverage. In the alternative, that the plaintiffs were entitled to relief from forfeiture.

Walker v. Sovereign GeneraI Insurance Co. [2011] O.J. No. 4106, September 19, 2011, Ontario Court of Appeal, D.R. O'Connor A.C.J.O., J.I. Laskin and J.C. MacPherson JJ.A.

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

An insurer denied coverage under a policy of life insurance after it had accepted payment of back premiums and reinstated coverage following the insured's death.  The court held the insurer had waived its right to require renewed evidence of insurability prior to reinstating coverage and could not later seek to deny coverage.  The court also held the insurer was estopped from denying coverage because it represented coverage would be reinstated upon payment of back premiums, which the plaintiff paid to her detriment.

Paul v. CUMIS Life Insurance Co. [2011] B.C.J. No. 373, March 7, 2011, British Columbia Supreme Court, W. Ehrcke J.

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

The appeal by an insurer from a decision holding that it was entitled to deduct from amounts payable to the insured under her underinsured motorist coverage only those Canada Pension Plan disability benefits actually paid to the date that she settled her claim with the other motorist and owner. The appeal was allowed. Although the insured’s right to damages arose at the time of the accident, the quantum of damages stood to be fixed as of the date of adjudication. The insurer was entitled to deduct all amounts recovered by the insured from the date of the accident to the determination of her damages entitlement by the Court.

Economical Mutual Insurance Co. v. Lapalme, [2010] N.B.J. No. 421, December 2, 2010, New Brunswick Court of Appeal, J.E. Drapeau C.J.N.B., M.E.L. Larlee and K.A. Quigg JJ.A.

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

Coventree Inc. ("Coventree") was successful in obtaining a declaration that an insurance policy issued by an insurer ("Lloyds") was operative despite the fact that notice of the claim had been provided to an earlier D&O insurer where the Court held that Lloyds had waived the right to rely on the earlier notice.

Coventree Inc. v. Lloyds Syndicate 1221 (Millenium Syndicate) [2011] O.J. No. 4036, September 13, 2011, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, T.R. Lederer J.

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

In a case concerning coverage under a motor truck cargo insurance policy, a truck driver locked a truck and secured the two flatbed trailers, but left the keys under the floor mat inside the cab of the truck.

Following a theft, Lloyd's Underwriters ("Lloyd's") argued that this loss was not covered, because the policy in place only applied to trucks subject to such trucks "having all their openings closed, securely locked and all keys removed…."

The Plaintiff’s action against Lloyd's with respect to the disappearance of cargo on one of its truck trailer units was allowed.  The court held that "all keys removed" created ambiguity as to whether the keys were intended to be removed from the locks or from anywhere in the truck.  The Court found the wording of the Unattended Truck Endorsement was ambiguous, and interpreted the policy wording against Lloyd's.

421205 Alberta Ltd. (c.o.b. Schroeder Transport) v. Lloyd's Underwriters, [2011] A.J. No. 311, March 17, 2011, Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, J.M. Ross J.

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

In the context of asbestos litigation, the Court reviewed issues relating to the allocation of claims between multiple policy years. The Court refused to adopt into Canadian law the "Stonewall Principle", a theory in the U.S. jurisprudence that when allocating an asbestos-based claim for insurance purposes over a number of years of injury, the insured should not be deemed to self-insure for those years when the insured could not voluntarily insure itself because of the existence of an asbestos exclusion.

Goodyear Canada Inc. v. American International Companies [2011] O.J. No. 4100, September 16, 2011, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, D.G. Stinson J.

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

The plaintiff was successful in having the court overturn the dismissal of the plaintiff's application to add Republic Western Insurance Company ("RWIC") as a defendant to the action where the court held that RWIC was not entitled to rely upon the limitation provision in s.103 of the Insurance (Vehicle) Regulation, B.C. Regulation 447/83 (the "Regulations") with respect to the plaintiff's claim for no fault accident benefits.

Moldovan v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, [2010] B.C.J. No. 2496, December 10, 2010, British Columbia Supreme Court, L.A. Loo J.

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