Where a person is not a named insured on an automobile policy and that person operates a vehicle listed on that policy, the policy holder for the vehicle is not absolutely liable under section 258 of the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.8, if that person is involved in a motor vehicle accident. Section 258 will not be engaged unless it is established that the operator of the vehicle was an insured under the policy. To be an insured under the policy, the operator of the vehicle must have been either a named insured or a person driving with the named insured’s consent at the time of the accident, and the vehicle being driven must have been owned by a named insured.

Brown v. Belair v. Wawanesa, [2014] O.J. No. 4638, October 2, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, S.E. Firestone J.

Continue Reading...

A first party insurer claimed indemnification from a second party insurer for statutory accident benefits paid to an insured following a motorcycle accident. It was held by both the arbitrator and the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on appeal that the amounts paid out to the insured were unreasonable. As a result, the quantum of statutory benefits paid to the first party insurer by the second party insurer was significantly reduced.

Jevco Insurance Co. v. Gore Mutual Insurance Co.,[2014] O.J. No. 4531, September 19, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, E.M. Stewart J.,

Continue Reading...

Where one insurer is liable to indemnify another for statutory accident benefits, the statutory scheme creates a new and actionable statutory cause of action each time a proper request for indemnification is made and goes unsatisfied.  The insurer was liable to satisfy requests made within two years of the notice to arbitrate and any requests made after.

Economical Mutual Insurance Co. v. Zurich Insurance Co., [2014] O.J. No. 4166, September 2, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, T.R. Lederer J.

Continue Reading...

The insurer was obligated to assume the defence of an additional named insured because all the plaintiff’s claims potentially arose out of or were related to the primary insured’s operations.

Sinclair v. Markham (Town), [2014] O.J. No. 4202, September 10, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, E.P. Belobaba J.

Continue Reading...

Coverage was not excluded as against two insureds as a result of an alleged intentional act on the part of another insured, because the claim in negligence against the two insureds was distinct and not derivative of the intentional tort claimed against the other insured.

D.E. v. Unifund Assurance Co., [2014] O.J. No. 4271, September 11, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, D.G. Stinson J.

Continue Reading...

Insured's action against insurer on a policy of critical illness insurance was dismissed on the basis that the insured's cancer showed signs of developing within 90 days of the effective date of the policy thereby triggering a 90-day exclusion clause.

MacQuarrie v. National Bank Life Insurance Co., [2014] O.J. No. 4130, February 27, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, M.A. Sanderson J.

Continue Reading...

Third party notice issued by owner of motor vehicle against renter was sufficient to require insurer of renter to respond first to claim arising out of a motor vehicle accident, notwithstanding that the plaintiff only named the owner as a defendant.

Elias v. Koochek, [2014] O.J. No. 4125, September 8, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, S.E. Firestone J.

Continue Reading...

Defendant certified financial planner was not covered under a general liability policy in respect to a claim arising from the plaintiffs' investment in a specific project, which turned out to be a fraudulent scheme.

Yanaky v. Arch Insurance (Canada), [2014] O.J. No. 3951, August 27, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, S.E. Firestone J.

Continue Reading...

Award of punitive damages upheld but award of mental distress damages was reduced on appeal from judgment against insurer for failure to pay disability benefits.

Fernandes v. Penncorp Life Insurance Co., [2014] O.J. No. 4039, September 2, 2014, Ontario Court of Appeal, R.G. Juriansz, S.E. Pepall and K.M. van Rensburg JJ.A.

Continue Reading...

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...