British Columbia Insurance Blog : Canada Insurance Lawyer & Attorney : Michael Thomas of Harper Grey Law Firm : British Columbia, Vancouver

An action against City was barred by Quebec's Automobile Insurance Act in circumstances where a tree maintained by the City fell on the insured's vehicle while he was driving.

Westmount (City) v. Rossy, [2012] S.C.J. No. 30, June 22, 2012, Supreme Court of Canada, McLachlin C.J. and LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Cromwell and Karakatsanis JJ.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This was a successful appeal by an Insurer from a determination that an Insured’s paraplegia resulting from a complication of genital herpes was covered under a group insurance policy.

Co-operators Life Insurance Co. v. Gibbens, [2009] S.C.J. No. 59, December 18, 2009, Supreme Court of Canada, McLachlin C.J. and Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron, Rothstein and Cromwell JJ.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Teck Cominco Metals Ltd. ("Teck") sued its Insurers in the US for coverage in relation to environmental damage alleged to have occurred in the US. The Insurers commenced parallel proceedings in British Columbia seeking Declaratory Orders regarding their obligation to defend or indemnify Teck. The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the dismissal of Applications by Teck for Orders staying the BC proceedings in favour of proceedings Teck commenced in the US.

Teck Cominco Metals Ltd. v. Lloyd's Underwriters, [2009] S.C.J. No. 11, February 20, 2009, Supreme Court of Canada, McLachlin C.J. and Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Charron and Rothstein JJ.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

An insured is entitled to coverage under an all risk policy against the possibility that a product design might fail even though not improper or faulty according to the state of the art.

Canadian National Railway Co. v. Royal and Sun Alliance Insurance Co. of Canada [2008] S.J.C. No. 67 Supreme Court of Canada McLachlin C.J., and Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Abella, Charron and Rothstein JJ November 21, 2008.

This case has also been summarized in Business Insurance, and the Lawyers Weekly,

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Supreme Court of Canada set aside an award of punitive damages of $100,000 against a disability insurer ("Sun Life"), but upheld an award of $20,000 in aggravated damages for mental distress for breach of contract.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Supreme Court of Canada held that in common law under a claims-made policy, the insurer has no duty to defend the actions brought against the insured where no intention is communicated by the claimants or their representatives during the policy period to hold the insured responsible for damages.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the insurer was not entitled to rely on the statutory condition, with respect to material change to risk, to void coverage for loss arising from a fire while the property was vacant. The Court held that the statutory condition was in conflict with the mortgage clause in the policy.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In this decision the Supreme Court of Canada upheld a finding that a portion of settlement funds was taxable as income. At issue were funds received in settlement of a dispute over long-term disability benefits. The Minister of National Revenue initially assessed the entire settlement as income, the Tax Court of Canada set aside the Minister’s decision, and the Federal Court of Appeal held that because a portion of the settlement was attributable to benefits arrears, it replaced monies paid pursuant to a disability insurance plan, and was therefore taxable under section 6(1)(f) of the Income Tax Act.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Supreme Court of Canada considered the interpretation of "change material to the risk" in a New Brunswick policy for fire insurance. In a 5-2 decision, McLachlin C.J., writing for the majority, allowed the appeal and reinstated the decision of the trial judge, holding that if the insurance contract was void by reason of a statutory condition, the court should relieve against the result because a vacancy had been rectified. Bastarache and Charron JJ. dissented, holding that the statutory condition is clear and unambiguous, and the duty of disclosure was breached.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link