After thoroughly reviewing the law on the defintion of "accident", the court concluded the insured's foolish attempt to take-off with only one functioning engine in a two-engine aircraft, resulting in a crash, was still an accident.

Van Berlo v. Aim Underwriting Ltd., [2014] O.J. No. 3885, August 19, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, V. Mitrow J.

Continue Reading...

Contrary to the trend towards tolerancy in setting aside default judgments, an insurer's motion to set aside default judgment was dismissed.

Kisel v. Intact Insurance Co., [2014] O.J. No. 3812, August 18, 2014, Ontario Supreme Court of Justice, P.M. Perrell J.

Continue Reading...

An insurer was declared the dominus litis of a subrogated claim brought in the name of the insured despite the insureds making assignments in bankruptcy prior to the insurer commencing the action.

Douglas v. Stan Ferguson Fuels Ltd., [2014] O.J. No. 3741, August 13, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, B.W. Abrams J.

 

Continue Reading...

Insured's application for a declaration that the insurer owed a duty to defend regarding an action commenced by a contractor seeking damages for breach of contract, quantum meruit and unjust enrichment for unpaid work . The insured's application was dismissed because the pleadings did not contain a claim for a "wrongful act" within the meaning of the policy.

Thunder Bay Masonic Foundation v. Sovereign General Insurance Co. [2014] O.J. No. 3660, July 11, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, F.B. Fitzpatrick J.

Continue Reading...

The insured’s property damage claim under a homeowner’s policy for damage to her house alleged to have been caused by a contractor fell within the “faulty workmanship” exclusion of the insured’s insurance policy, which also excluded resulting damage from faulty workmanship.

Monk v. Farmers' Mutual Insurance Co. (Lindsay), [2014] O.J. 3509, June 27, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, E.J. Koke J.

Continue Reading...

A farmer’s action for damages for bodily injuries and accident benefits arising out of an accident that occurred while he was driving an uninsured all-terrain vehicle on a public road was statute barred by virtue of the operation of Ontario’s 267.6(1) of the Insurance Act and s. 30(1)(a) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule. Although it was exclusively used as a farming vehicle, the ATV did not qualify as a self-propelled implement of husbandry and therefore did not fall within an exception to the compulsory motor vehicle insurance scheme in the province.

Matheson v. Lewis, [2014] O.J. No. 3304, July 11, 2014, Ontario Court of Appeal, R.G. Juriansz, M.H. Tulloch and G.R. Strathy JJ.A.

Continue Reading...

At appeal, the court upheld the trial judge’s decision that a tenant’s insertion of cardboard into furnace controls which caused the furnace to run continually until failure, did not fall within the mechanical breakdown or pollution exclusion under the insured landlord’s all-risk insurance policy. The court also upheld the lower court’s decision that the letter from the adjuster advising no proof of loss was required constituted waiver of the insured’s requirement to file the proof of loss.

O'Byrne v. Farmers' Mutual Insurance Co., [2014] O.J. No. 3303, July 11, 2014, Ontario Court of Appeal, G.J. Epstein, S.E. Pepall and K.M. van Rensburg JJ.A.

Continue Reading...

Reasonable preventative measures taken by an insured to prevent probable future damages may not be recoverable where the policy excludes coverage for any defect or fault in material or design. This was the case even where an insured loss occurred in an identical piece of machinery as a result of the same defect for which the insured then took preventative steps. The insured’s costs to repair and business losses were a result of its own precautionary measures, and not an accidental or fortuitous event.

Mississippi River Power Corp. v. Municipal Electric Assn. Reciprocal Insurance Exchange [2014] O.J. No. 3007, June 23, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, M.Z. Charbonneau J.

Continue Reading...

Two or more errors, omissions or negligent acts are “related” for the purposes of a policy where there is a sufficient association or connection between them, reading the policy as a whole and bearing in mind its objective. In determining whether there is a sufficient association or connection, the court must consider the similarities and difference between the nature and kind of the alleged misconduct which underlies each claim, and the kind and character of the losses for which recovery is sought in each claim.

Simpson Wigle Law LLP v. Lawyers’ Professional Indemnity Co. [2014] O.J. No. 3037, June 25, 2014, Ontario Court of Appeal, E.E. Gillese, K.M. van Rensburg and C.W. Hourigan JJ.A.

Continue Reading...

The existance of subrogated action in insured's name in Alberta for property damage was not a bar to insured's claim for personal injuries in Ontario.

Kelly v. Horn, [2014] O.J. No. 2872, June 16, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, F.N. Marrocco A.C.J.S.C.J., A.C.R. Whitten and Thomas JJ.

Continue Reading...