Allstate Insurance Co. of Canada v. Aftab, [2015] O.J. No. 2516, May 15, 2015, Ontario Court of Appeal, G.R. Strathy C.J.O., H.S. LaForme and M.H. Tulloch JJ.A.

Continue Reading...

Where an insurer insures both the tortfeasor for liability coverage and the victim for accident benefits, the insurer should set up a firewall so that information gathered by it regarding the accident benefits claim is not available in the tort action.

Dervisholli v. Cervenak, [2015] O.J. No. 2076, April 24, 2015, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, F.N. Marrocco A.C.J.S.C.J., J.C. Kent and M.L. Edwards JJ.

Continue Reading...

The defendant vendor of a fuel oil tank which was alleged to have leaked sought a defence from its insurers under three separate liability insurance policies. One insurer was unable to rely on the limitation period in its policy and was required to provide a defence. The claims did not fall within coverage or were excluded under the two other policies.

Daverne v. John Switzer Fuels Ltd., [2015] O. J. No. 1589, March 31, 2015, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, G. Mew J.

Continue Reading...

In a motor vehicle action, the limitation period for the plaintiff to make a claim for uninsured motorist coverage to his own insurer did not start to run until he was alerted that the driver and insurance information in the police report regarding the accident might be incorrect and it was reasonable for him to have relied on the information in the police report until that time.

Lingard v. Milne-McIsaac, [2015] O.J. No. 1569, March 31, 2015, Ontario Court of Appeal, P.D. Lauwers, C.W. Hourigan and G.I. Pardu JJ.A.

Continue Reading...

Decision granting summary judgment dismissing insured's action was upheld on basis that insured did not meet qualifying conditions of disability policy and commenced action more than two years after becoming aware of disability.

Thompson v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada, [2015] O.J. No. 1195, March 12, 2015, Ontario Court of Appeal, E.A. Cronk, E.E. Gillese and D. M. Brown JJ.A.

Continue Reading...

Commercial general liability insurer was under obligation to defend insured in respect to claims relating to allegedly defective valves in HVAC units, which resulted in flooding.

Versa Fittings and Manufacturing Inc. v. Berkley Insurance Co., [2015] O.J. No. 1378, March 19, 2015, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, G. Mew J.

Continue Reading...

Commercial general liability insurers are under duty to defend insured in third party claims and to share the costs on a proportionate basis.

UPS Supply Chain Solutions Inc. v. Airon HVAC Service Ltd., [2015] O.J. No. 1360, March 18, 2015, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, W.M. Matheson J.

Continue Reading...

An insured was advised by its broker that the broker had arranged for the excess insurer to provide umbrella insurance coverage for the insured's vehicles; however, the broker failed to advise there was a gap in excess coverage with respect to the insured's long-term leased vehicles. Following an accident involving one of the insured's long-term leased vehicles, the insured sought coverage from the excess insurer, but was denied. The insured successfully brought an action in negligence against the brokers for their failure to properly advise the insured with respect to the umbrella coverage obtained for the vehicles.

Dustbane Products Limited v. Gifford Associates Insurance Brokers Inc., [2015] O.J. No. 854, February 18, 2015, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, M.L. Edwards J.

Continue Reading...

Motion for summary judgement brought against the insurer by a plaintiff who claimed to be an assignee of the insured’s automobile policy. The action was dismissed. The policy was not assignable in the circumstances. Alternatively, the policy had not been breached and therefore no cause of action was available to the insured or an assignee.

ResQ Auto Glass Inc. v. Co-operators General Insurance Co., [2015] O.J. No. 663, February 11, 2015, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, W. Low J.

Continue Reading...

The insured refused to answer certain questions on discovery on the basis of relevance and lack of knowledge.  The court granted the insurer’s motion for an order that the insured produce an alternative representative with the proper knowledge and that the representative be compelled to answer the questions refused on the basis of relevance.

Roman Catholic Episcopal Corp. for the Diocese of Sault Ste. Marie v. Axa Insurance (Canada), [2015] O.J. No. 630, February 10, 2015, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, E.E. Gareau J.

Continue Reading...