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

Insurer's application to be added as a party in an action by former employees against former directors and officers of its insured company was dismissed.

Pope & Talbot Ltd. (Re), [2011] B.C.J. No. 793, April 28, 2011, British Columbia Supreme Court (In Bankruptcy and Insolvency), P.W. Walker J.

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

Insured was entitled to coverage under the policy because membership in AMA was not a condition precedent to coverage and there was a reasonable expectation that the policy would be renewed on an annual basis.

Lafont v. Alberta Motor Assn. Insurance Co., [2011] A.J. No. 513, May 3, 2011, Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, D.J. Manderscheid J.

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

Evidence of insured's girlfriend sufficient to corroborate insured's evidence of the involvement of an unidentified driver in a motor vehicle accident such that he was entitled to coverage under the Family Protection Endorsement OPCF 44R.

Pepe v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., [2011] O.J. No. 2011, May 3, 2011, Ontario Court of Appeal, D.H. Doherty, M.J. Moldaver and K.N. Feldman JJ.A.

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

An insured homeowner sought insurance coverage for the damage caused by a marijuana grow-operation carried out by  the insured's tenants.  The insured argued that a grow-op falls within coverage for vandalism or malicious acts.   The insurer argued that mould and moisture damage caused by the grow-op fell outside of coverage. The British Columbia Supreme Court held that a tenant who has a grow-op shows a reckless disregard for the landlord's rights.   That disregard provides a sufficient basis to infer malice on the part of the tenant.  The Court held that the mould and moisture damage caused by the grow-op can therefore be considered damage caused by an act of vandalism.

Hanlon v. ING Insurance Co. of Canada, [2011] B.C.J. No. 84, January 24, 2011, British Columbia Supreme Court, R.J. Sewell J.

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