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

This case involves an application to determine whether an insurer has a duty to defend an action against an insured in relation to a claim for property damage to property formerly owned by the insured.  The property was sold, and the insurer argued that there was an exclusion policy in respect of property "owned" by the insured, and therefore, it had no duty to defend.

The court held that the exclusion for property damage to property owned by the insured was not intended to apply to situations where the property had been transferred to a third party, and a duty to defend arose.  The judge held that "the exclusion cannot be read as it was written both in the present tense and the past tense.  It is in the present tense only."

Hector v. Piazza [2011] O.J. No. 971, March 4, 2011, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, P.B. Annis J.

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

The plaintiff insureds moved for summary judgment in the action requiring the defendant insurer to pay defence costs they incurred defending another action pursuant to the terms of a Director's and Officer's liability insurance policy ("D&O liability policy"). Based on the plain wording of the policy the plaintiff insureds established that the claims asserted against them in the other action were claims made against "Insured Persons" for "Wrongful Acts" as those terms were defined in the policies and therefore fell within the basic coverage section of each of the insurance policies. The court concluded that the insurer had a duty to advance defence costs prior to the final disposition of the action. At issue was what constitutes sufficient notice of circumstances under a D&O liability policy to entitle a subsequent claim arising out of such notice to be deemed to have occurred during the policy.

Onex v. American Home Assurance Co. [2011] O.J. No. 3031, June 30, 2011, Ontarior Superior Court of Justice, L.A. Pattillo J.

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

Application by the insured for an order requiring the insurers to reimburse the costs incurred in successfully defending criminal charges. The insured argued the insurers wrongly denied the insured’s claim for indemnification of his legal expenses. The Court found that the exclusion relied upon by the insurers did not apply and ordered reimbursement for all legal costs.

Perrault v. Encon Insurance Managers Inc. [2011] O.J. No. 3566, June 30, 2011, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, S.E. Greer J.

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

Application to add out-of-province insurer as a defendant by insured allowed notwithstanding the limitation period prescribed by s. 103 of the Insurance (Vehicle) Regulation had expired.

Moldovan v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, [2011] B.C.J. No. 2008, October 27, 2011, British Columbia Court of Appeal, M.V. Newbury, D.M. Smith and H. Groberman JJ.A.

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