The legal causation test for statutory accident benefits is the "but for" test

Despite language indicative of the "material contribution" causation test, the legal causation test for statutory accident benefits is the "but for" test.

Kozhikhov v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, [2015] B.C.J. No. 2785, 2015 BCCA 515, British Columbia Court of Appeal, December 17, 2015, M.E. Saunders, D.M. Smith, and A.W. MacKenzie JJ.A.

Continue Reading...

The deceased and her former common law spouse had given up all claims to each other's property under a separation agreement. Therefore, the spouse was not entitled to receive the proceeds of a life insurance policy on the deceased's life, though he had not been removed as the beneficiary.

Shiller-Arsenault v. Proudman, 2015 BCSC 1924, October 21, 2015, British Columbia Supreme Court, W.G. Baker J.

Continue Reading...

Indemnity was extended to the badly injured driver of a motor vehicle after an intoxicated passenger intentionally grabbed the steering wheel, causing the vehicle to crash because the word “use” in the legislation included use by a passenger while the vehicle was being used as a motor vehicle.

Felix v. Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, 2015 B.C.J. No. 2024, September 23, 2015, Court of Appeal for British Columbia, E.A. Bennett, M.E. Saunders and S.S. Stromberg-Stein JJ.A.

Continue Reading...

The insured’s claims against the strata corporation and the strata insurer were dismissed after a fire caused by a tenant’s clandestine drug laboratory only caused damage to the insured’s strata unit. The quantum of damage was less than the strata corporation’s $50,000 deductible, which was not an unreasonable deductible value.

Louie v. Strata Plan VR-1323, [2015] B.C.J. No. 2186, October 8, 2015, British Columbia Supreme Court, B.M. Greyell J.

Continue Reading...

The insured was not in breach of his insurance policy when he crashed his vehicle into a restaurant after consuming a bowl of Kava (a traditional Fijian drink). There was insufficient evidence to prove that a single bowl of Kava would cause the symptoms experienced by the insured. The insured did not provide a false statement by saying he had not consumed drugs in the 12 hours prior to the accident.

Venkataya v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, [2015] B.C.J. No. 1896, September 3, 2015, British Columbia Supreme Court, P.G. Voith J.

Continue Reading...

The plaintiff’s damages for mileage costs for using her vehicle to travel to and from medical and necessary physical therapy appointments as well as the cost of the plaintiff’s attendance at a pain program were deducted from her damages award as these amounts qualified for no fault benefits.

Park v. Targonski, [2015] B.C.J. No. 1857, August 28, 2015, British Columbia Supreme Court, G.J. Fitch 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...

The Standard of Review for an Umpire's Decision is "Patently Unreasonable"

Judicial review of an umpire's decision made pursuant to section 12 of the Insurance Act, R.S.B.C. 2012, c.1, regarding the value of stolen jewellery The standard of review was whether the umpire's decision was patently unreasonable. The petitioners (insureds) failed to identify a reversible error and the petition for judicial review was dismissed.

Vandale v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co., [2015] B.C.J. No. 942, May 11, 2015, British Columbia Supreme Court, P. Rogers J.

Continue Reading...

Insurer does not have Duty to Defend Negligent Acts Occuring within Policy Period After Policy Expires

The Court found on a special case under Rule 9-3 that the insurer did not have a duty to defend the insureds with respect to claims for negligent acts occurring within the policy period when the resulting damage (i.e., a landslide) occurred several months after the policy expired.

Canadian Northern Shield Insurance Co. v. Intact Insurance Co., [2015] B.C.J. No. 943, May 11, 2015, British Columbia Supreme Court, B. Fisher J.

Continue Reading...

An insurer is responsible for pre-tender defence costs

An insurer is responsible for pre-tender defence costs absent an identifiable prejudice arising from the late notice of the claim.

Lloyd's Underwriters v. Blue Mountain Log Sales Ltd., [2015] B.C.J. No. 783, April 22, 2015, British Columbia Supreme Court, T.M. McEwan J.

Continue Reading...