A Subrogated Claim against an Employee Common to both Plaintiff and Defendant is Bound to Fail

A subrogated claim against an individual and corporate entities was dismissed after the court found both the defendants and the plaintiff were the common employers of the individual who actually started the fire.

Shamac Country Inns Ltd. v. Sandy's Oilfield Hauling Ltd., [2015] A.J. No. 905, August 17, 2015, Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Master R.P. Wacowich

Continue Reading...

A Covenant to Insure is a Bar to a Subrogated Claim against a Subcontractor

A covenant to insure operated to bar a subrogated claim against a subcontractor. A subcontractor was also considered an unnamed insured even though the policy did not contain any wording expanding the definition of an insured beyond that of the named insured.

DCMS GP (Dufferin-Steeles) Inc. v. Caribbean Tower Cranes Ltd., [2015] O.J. No. 4364, August 19, 2015, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, M.D. Faieta J.

Continue Reading...

An Extra-provincial Insurer has no Right to bring a Subrogated Claim to Recover Amounts Paid

An extra provincial insurer has no express statutory right of subrogation under the Insurance (Vehicle) Act and cannot bring a subrogated claim to recover the amounts it paid to its insureds in respect of a motor vehicle accident occurring in British Columbia.

Middleton v. Heerlein, [2015] B.C.J. No. 1524, July 17, 2015, British Columbia Supreme Court, R. Johnston J.

Continue Reading...

Bullying was found to be an Intentional Act and Liability Coverage was Excluded (Action 2)

An exclusion clause excluding liability coverage for claims arising from bodily injury caused by an intentional act applied to exclude coverage for claims for alleged bullying.

C.S. V. TD Home and Auto Insurance Co., [2015] O.J. No. 3063, June 11, 2015, Ontario Court of Appeal, J.C. MacPherson, E.A. Cronk and E.E. Gillese JJ.A

Continue Reading...

Bullying was found to be an Intentional Act and Liability Coverage was Excluded (Action 1)

An exclusion clause which excludes liabilty coverage for claims arising from failure to take steps to prevent physical, psychological or emotional harassment is clear on its face and excludes coverage for claims in negligence for failure to prevent bullying being perpetrated by the daughter of the insureds

D.E. v. Unifund Assurance Co., [2015] O.J. No. 3059, June 11, 2015, Ontario Court of Appeal, J.C. MacPherson, E.A. Cronk and E.E. Gillese JJ.A

Continue Reading...

A Party Advancing a Claim for Insurance Monies is not necessarily an Adverse Party

A party that is not advancing a claim for insurance money cannot be an adverse party for the purposes of litigation under section 176 of the Insurance Act, RSNB 1973, c.I-12.

Blue Cross Life Insurance Company of Canada v. Crawford, [2015] N.B.J. No. 147, May 27, 2015, New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, R.T. French J.

Continue Reading...

An Insurer has no Duty to Investigate Accuracy of Information Provided by Insured

The insurer had no duty to investigate the information provided by the insured to unearth misrepresentations by the insured.  A broker was held liable for failing to make inquiries into whether an insured’s representative who completed the insurance applications had the necessary training or experience to do so and if not to discuss the benefits of property inspections with him. The insured was apportioned 50% liability for failing to ensure that its representatives handling the placement of insurance had sufficient knowledge of the properties to place coverage.

Grafton Connor Property Inc. (c.o.b. Grafton-Connor Group) v. Lloyd’s of London Underwriters, [2015] N.S.J. No. 270, June 30, 2015, Nova Scotia Supreme Court, A.J. LeBlanc J.

Continue Reading...

Auto Insurance in Ontario does not Cover Drivers unless they are either Named, or have Consent from the Insured

Under the Insurance Act, RSO 1990 c.I.8, not every person who operates a listed automobile is an insured for whom indemnity is provided. To fall into that category, one must not only be driving an autombile listed on the policy, but must also be either a named insured or driving with the insured's consent. The Court found that the driver was not an insured and was not driving with the insured's consent.

Brown v. Williamson, [2015] O.J. No. 3537, July 3, 2015, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, S.E. Firestone J.

Continue Reading...

Horse Rider Training does not Fall within Scope of Farm Insurance Policy

Insured failed to inform the insurance broker of all equine activities he engaged in when he purchased the policy.  In particular, the insured failed to inform the broker that he may engage in the activity of providing horseback riding lessons, which was not found to be a "farm activity" under the policy. The Alberta Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge’s decision that the action as against the insurer was dismissed.

Burch v. Intact Insurance Co., [2015] A.J. No. 735, July 3, 2015, Alberta Court of Appeal, E.I. Picard, P.A . Rowbotham and B.K. O'Ferrall JJ.A.

Continue Reading...

Exclusion Clause Wording "Claims Arising From" is more exclusionary than "Claims For"

Allstate Insurance Co. of Canada v. Aftab, [2015] O.J. No. 2516, May 15, 2015, Ontario Court of Appeal, G.R. Strathy C.J.O., H.S. LaForme and M.H. Tulloch JJ.A.

Continue Reading...