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...

The insured, who had blood alcohol limit three times the legal limit, was killed in a motor boat accident which also injured the passenger. The insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify the insured’s estate in the action brought by the passenger as there was no contractual obligation to defend, and the duty to indemnify was excluded because the motorboat was “operated illegally”.

Heffernan Estate v. Lloyd's Canada, [2015] O.J. No. 599, February 10, 2015, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, E.P. Belobaba J.

Continue Reading...

Ruling on a question of law – is a severance package received by the plaintiff deductible from the amount awarded for past and future loss of income.  The court found that the private insurance exception to the general rule against double recovery was applicable and the severance package was not deductable from any amount awarded for loss of income.

Flammia v. Hagerman, [2014] O.J. No. 6336, December 17, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, G. Mew J.

Continue Reading...

The defendants brought a summary judgment application to have the plaintiff’s action dismissed as barred by the Limitations Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 24, on the basis the plaintiff’s action was commenced two years and 21 days after the motor vehicle accident at issue.  The court dismissed the defendants’ limitation defence on the basis the plaintiff did not subjectively nor objectively know that her injuries were permanent in the 21 day period after the accident.

Zhu v. Matadar, [2015] O.J. No. 78, January 8, 2015, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, P.M. Perell J.

Continue Reading...

The insured was granted relief from forfeiture for failing to meet the contractually imposed deadline for submitting a claim for long term disability benefits.

Dube v. RBC Life Insurance Co., [2015] O.J. No. 42, January 7, 2015, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, M.A. Garson J.

Continue Reading...