The insured’s application for long-term disability benefits was denied by the adjuster for five months after the time of her claim. The insured alleges that in denying her claim, the adjuster and the insurer did not act in good faith. The Court refused to summarily dismiss the insured’s claim against the insurer and adjuster for breach of contract and the duty of fairness and good faith; however, the insured’s claims against the adjuster for inducement of breach of contract and interference with contractual relations were dismissed.

Frank v. Kalokina, [2014] B.C.J. No. 2496, September 17, 2014, British Columbia Supreme Court, R.A.M. Baird J.

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...

A broker can crossclaim against an insurer where a declaration on the issue of coverage could provide the broker with a complete defence.

JBI v. ACE Ina Insurance, [2014] O.J. No. 2615, May 30, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Master J. Haberman

Continue Reading...

The insurer had separate policies of insurance with the plaintiff and the defendant. The plaintiffs argued that because they were also policy holders with the insurer, the insurer owed them a duty of good faith and fair dealing and the insurer was obliged to settle the plaintiffs' action against the defendants. The plaintiffs' action against the insurer was dismissed because the insurer owed no duty to the plaintiffs simply because the plaintiffs had an insurance policy with the insurer.

Sweet v. Sweet, [2014] S.J. No. 84, January 27, 2014, Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, R.C. Mills J.

Continue Reading...

Plaintiff's claim against defendant insurance brokers dismissed on basis that plaintiff adduced no expert evidence of standard of care and there was sufficient insurance available to plaintiff.

Midas Investment Corp. v. Dominion of Canada General Insurance Co., [2013] O.J. No. 3403, July 22, 2013, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, K.E. Swinton J.

Continue Reading...

Summary trial application by the beneficiaries of a life insurance policy for judgment against the insurer and broker. The insurer and broker also brought summary trial applications for a dismissal of the action. The Court granted the insurer's and broker's applications because the insured failed to disclose material information at the time of reinstatement. Accordingly, the insurer was justified in voiding the policy.

Branch v. Empire Life Insurance Co., [2013] B.C.J. NO. 1386, June 26, 2013, British Columbia Supreme Court, L.D. Russell J.

Continue Reading...

In action by injured driver against his insurance broker, a pleading in the statement of defence that 90% of Ontario motorists have only $1,000,000 in third party liability/family endorsement coverage was struck on the basis that it did not assist the trier of fact in determining what this plaintiff did and whether he was offered more insurance coverage.

Trottier v. Beauchamp, [2013] O.J. No. 2379, May 24, 2013, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, L.L. Gauthier J.

Continue Reading...

Application by the insured for reimbursement of legal fees it incurred defending Human Rights Tribunal proceedings. The insured had a "claims made and reported" insurance policy,  and notice of all claims was required no later than 30 days after termination of the policy period. The renewal form completed by the insured for the following year mentioned the Human Rights Tribunal proceedings but a formal claim for coverage was not made until after the 30 day deadline. The insured's application was dismissed because no effective claim was made within the claim period.

Peel Law Assn. v. Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Co. of Canada, [2013] O.J. No. 1844, April 24, 2013, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, M. Donohue J.

Continue Reading...

There is no statutory duty obligation a broker to offer an insured optional income replacement benefits

A claim against an insurance broker for the failure to advise about optional coverage. The action was dismissed.

Godina v. Tripemco Burlington Insurance Group Ltd., [2013] O.J. No. 613, February 12, 2013, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, R.B. Reid J.

Continue Reading...

An insurer may have an obligation to defend a claim after it's limits have been exhausted

Application for a declaration that pursuant to the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. 1.8 and Ontario’s Standard Automobile Policy (“SAP”) the insurer had no obligation to defend its insured against a claim after paying its policy limits to the plaintiff. The application was dismissed and the insurer was ordered to continue to bear the cost of defending the insured.

Jevco Insurance Co. v. Malaviya, [2013] O.J. No. 394, January 29, 2013, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, E.M. Morgan J.

Continue Reading...