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...

Although the insured’s claim for indemnification under a commercial general liability insurance policy for the cost of destroying a contaminated product sold by the insured to the third party was for a fortuitous loss, it did not fall within coverage as the insured did not prove the event that caused the contamination.

Westaqua Commodity Group Ltd. v. Sovereign General Insurance Co., [2014] B.C.J. No. 284, February 18, 2014, British Columbia Supreme Court, J. Steeves J.

Continue Reading...

Appeal of a finding that the lessee of a vehicle was the "owner" of the vehicle by virtue of the definition of "owner" under the Motor Vehicle Act such that the defendant driver was not an additional insured. Appeal dismissed. Although it was doubtful the lessee was an "owner" under the policy wording, the vehicle was licensed in the lessee's name and the defendant driver was not an additional insured.

Lombard General Insurance Co. of Canada v. Canadian Direct Insurance Inc. [2013] B.C.J. No. 2673, December 5, 2013, British Columbia Court of Appeal, P.D. Lowry, D.M. Smith and E.A. Bennett JJ.A.

Continue Reading...

The Court of Appeal considered whether the addition of the words "compensation similar to benefits" to section 106 of the Insurance (Vehicle) Regulation changed the meaning of section 106 such that compensation in the form of sick bank accumulation should be deducted from damages awarded for past income loss. The Court found that the words "compensation similar to benefits" did not remove the element of insurance from a plain reading of the section. The accumulation of sick leave credits does not involve an element of insurance. Accordingly, sick banked time is not deductible.

Jordan v. Lowe [2013] B.C.J. NO. 2647, December 3, 2013, British Columbia Court of Appeal, R.T.A. Low, C.E. Hinkson and D.C. Harris JJ.A.

Continue Reading...

 

The Court concluded that the extension of coverage for Interruption by Civil Authority did not provide coverage for subsequent consequential losses that occurred after access by a civil authority was no longer denied.

Strata Plan KAS3058 v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co. (c.o.b. Travellers) [2013] B.C.J. No. 2651, December 2, 2013, British Columbia Supreme Court, M.L. Fleming J.

Continue Reading...

The insured under a policy of homeowner’s insurance was found to be entitled to a defence in a tort action in which he was named as a defendant in his personal capacity and in his capacity as an officer and director of several companies also named as defendants in the tort action. It was held that the allegations against the insured were broad enough to include conduct outside the insured’s corporate duties and for which the corporate defendants may not be liable.

Martin v. Royal & Sun Alliance Co. of Canada, [2013] B.C.J. No. 2468, November 12, 2013, British Columbia Supreme Court, N.H. Smith J.

Continue Reading...

Insured under home insurance policy is not required to give insurer notice of vacancy or reduced occupancy for a period of less than 30 days.

Peebles v. The Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company, [2013] B.C.J. No. 2389, November 1, 2013, Supreme Court of British Columbia, Newbury J., Hall J. and Chiasson J.

Continue Reading...

The insured was granted leave to appeal the decision of an arbitrator where the arbitrator took a "fault-based" analysis in determining an insurer's obligations under a policy rather than applying the principles of contractual interpretation.

Bal v. British Columbia (Ministry of Agriculture), [2013] B.C.J. No. 2345, October 25, 2013, British Columbia Supreme Court, L.A. Warren J.

Continue Reading...

Appeal by the defendant with respect to, in part, whether a clause in the deceased's will which stated that he disinherited the defendant from "any and all beneficiaries lists" was a "declaration" under the Insurance Act sufficient to revoke the defendant's designation as a beneficiary under the deceased's life insurance policy. According to the court, the test for a "declaration" under the Insurance Act is not a stringent one, but the revocation of an insurance designation must be clear. The court held that since the clause in the will did not identify or adequately describe the particular life insurance policy to which the revocation applied, it did not meet the requirements of a "declaration" under the Act. As a result, the defendant remained a beneficiary to the deceased's life insurance policy despite the deceased's wishes to the contrary indicated in his will.

Bassi v. Bassi, [2013] B.C.J. No. 2170, October 3, 2013, British Columbia Court of Appeal, M.V. Newbury, D.F. Tysoe and C.E. Hinkson JJ.A.

Continue Reading...

The insurer denied coverage for a fire that substantially destroyed its insured’s building on the basis the insured’s principal deliberately set the fire. Action by the insured against the insurer allowed because the insurer did not meet the burden of proof necessary to establish that the fire was deliberately set by the insured’s agent.

Number 216 Holdings Ltd. v. Intact Insurance Co., [2013] B.C.J. No 1549, July 17, 2013, British Columbia Supreme Court, S.A. Griffin J.

Continue Reading...