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...

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...

Damage to Windows During Cleaning Amounted to Making Good Faulty Workmanship

Damage caused to windows by cleaning company during construction of building was not covered by all-risk policy containing exclusion for cost of making good faulty workmanship.

Ledcor Construction Ltd. v. Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Co., [2015] A.J. No. 338, March 27, 2015, Alberta Court of Appeal, J.E.L. Côté, J. Watson and F.F. Slatter JJ.A.

Continue Reading...

A Claim Against A Lawyer Will be Denied If the Lawyer is not Insured at the time the Loss is Discovered

The plaintiff was unable to recover for losses suffered as a result of her lawyer’s negligence because (1) the lawyer was not practicing law and thus was not insured at the time the loss was discovered, and (2) the lawyer did not report the potential loss to the insurer while the policy was in effect. The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench held that there was a reasonable and appropriate gap in coverage, and the Master’s decision was upheld.

Sawyer v. Canadian Lawyers Insurance Assn., [2015] A.J. No. 239, February 26, 2015, Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, J. Strekaf J.

Continue Reading...

The insurer’s failure to provide written notice of the applicable limitation period to the insured did not cause the limitation period for commencing an action to be waived or suspended on the bases of either promissory estoppel or the Fair Practices Regulation, Alta Reg 128/2001. However, section 5.3(2) of the Fair Practices Regulation, which requires insurers to provide claimants with written notice of the applicable limitation period within 60 days of becoming aware of a claim, is now in force. Consequently, insurers will be required to provide insureds with written notice of applicable limitation periods in claims brought after July 1, 2012.

Dhillon v. Anderson, [2014] A.J. No. 1110, October 3, 2014, Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Master A.R. Robertson (in Chambers)

Continue Reading...

It is appropriate for insurer to seek contribution from other insurers by filing an originating application pursuant to Rule 3.2(1) of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench Rules.

Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Corp. v. Intact Insurance Co., [2014] A.J. No. 611, June 10, 2014, Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, W.P. Sullivan 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...

The schedule or list of vehicles required under a fleet policy is not an "amendment" to an insurance policy. Relief from forfeiture relates to a proof of loss and is not an available remedy unless coverage has first been established.

Northbridge General Insurance Corp. v. 943240 Alberta Ltd., [2013] A.J. No. 1453, December 31, 2013, Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, J.T. McCarthy J.

Continue Reading...

An insurer was granted summary judgment striking a claim commenced by a judgment creditor of the insured as the claim had not been made during the policy period.

Sawyer v. Canadian Lawyers Insurance Assn., [2013] A.J. No. 1143, October 21, 2013, Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Master J.T. Prowse

Continue Reading...

An insurer cannot deny coverage on the basis of an insured's failure to notify of a material change in the risk where the insurer has knowledge of the change in the risk, even if the knowledge is imputed to the insurer by way of agency.

Mah v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co., [2013] A.J. No. 1164, October 31, 2013, Alberta Court of Appeal, J.E.L. Cote, J. Watson and B.K. O'Ferrall JJ. A.

Continue Reading...