An insurer was time barred from bringing a loss transfer claim against a second insurer by operation of the doctrine of laches.

Zurich Insurance Co. v. TD General Insurance Co., [2014] O.J. No. 2550, May 27, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, S.N. Lederman J.

Continue Reading...

A broker can crossclaim against an insurer where a declaration on the issue of coverage could provide the broker with a complete defence.

JBI v. ACE Ina Insurance, [2014] O.J. No. 2615, May 30, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Master J. Haberman

Continue Reading...

The principle that a claim for indemnification does not arise, and therefore does not trigger the running of the limitation period, until a request for indemnification is made does not apply if s. 18 of the Limitation Act also applies.

Old Republic Insurance Co. of Canada v. Aviva Canada Inc., [2014] O.J. No. 2580, May 28, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, S.N. Lederman J.

Continue Reading...

This was a motion by the insureds to determine whether their home was insured by the insurer when it was destroyed by fire. Prior to the fire, the insurer wrote to the insureds to advise them that the policy would not be renewed (the renewal date was 8 days before the fire). The insureds argued the insurer was not entitled to terminate the policy as it did. The Court found the termination was valid. A plain reading of the termination clause of the insurance policy indicated that neither the insurer nor the insured must give any reason for termination of the policy.

Merei v. State Farm Fire Casualty Co., [2014] O.J. No. 2434, May 15, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, T.J. Carey J.

Continue Reading...

A dispute arose over the application of an indemnity clause in a contract between a golf tournament host and golf course owner. The plaintiff was injured in a golf cart accident. When the indemnity clause was read as a whole, it obliged the golf tournament host to indemnify the golf course owner for the golf course owner's own negligence.

Neely v. MacDonald, [2014] O.J. No. 2285, May 12, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, F.L. Myers J.

Continue Reading...

This was a summary trial pursuant to s. 530 of the Insurance Act for judgment against the defendant's insurer. The insurer argued the farm policy was void ab initio because of non‑disclosure of a material fact or, in the alternative, the "business pursuits" exclusion clause applied. The Court dismissed the plaintiff's action because the "business pursuits" exclusion excluded coverage. The plaintiff was injured in the course of a horse riding lesson that was a "business pursuit" of the defendant insured.

Burch v. Intact Insurance Co., [2014] A.J. No. 540, May 20, 2014, Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, S.J. Greckol J.

Continue Reading...

A release signed by a plaintiff participating in a zip line activity did not defeat the plaintiff's claim for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle collision on the defendant zip line operator's bus travelling from the zipline area. The release was contrary to public policy, which did not allow an owner/operator of a motor vehicle to contract out of liability for damages for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident.

Niedermeyer v. Charlton [2014] B.C.J. No. 763, April 30, 2014, British Columbia Court of Appeal, E.A. Bennett, N.J. Garson, and C.E. Hinkson JJ.A.

Continue Reading...

A plaintiff’s covenant to insure the defendant signifies the assumption of risk of damage for which it sues. This covenant barred the plaintiff’s insurer from bringing a subrogated claim against the covenantee defendant for the damage. Notwithstanding a lack of contractual privity, the covenant also barred the plaintiff from bringing a subrogated claim against the other defendants on the basis that the plaintiff's claim was derivative of the same incident and the same damage as the claim against the covenantee.

Sanofi Pasteur Ltd. v. UPS SCS, Inc. [2014] O.J. No. 2076, April 30, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, E.M. Morgan J.

 

Continue Reading...

The insurer denied coverage for water damage to the insured’s basement because it was caused by “continuous or repeated seepage”, which was an excluded risk. The court found that the insurer was incorrect in determining this to have been the cause of the water damage, and held that the exclusion did not apply to the loss. The court did not award punitive damages because the conduct of the insurer in denying the claim was only misguided and could not be descibed as malicious, oppressive or highanded.

Moffat v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co. [2014] O.J. No. 2124, April 25, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, B. Babcock Deputy J.

Continue Reading...

Insured found to have made material misrepresentations during his application for a life and disability policy.

Linden Estate v. CUMIS Life Insurance Co., [2014] N.S.J. No. 153, April 4, 2014, Nova Scotia Supreme Court, D. Boudreau J.

Continue Reading...