This was a summary trial pursuant to s. 530 of the Insurance Act for judgment against the defendant's insurer. The insurer argued the farm policy was void ab initio because of non‑disclosure of a material fact or, in the alternative, the "business pursuits" exclusion clause applied. The Court dismissed the plaintiff's action because the "business pursuits" exclusion excluded coverage. The plaintiff was injured in the course of a horse riding lesson that was a "business pursuit" of the defendant insured.

Burch v. Intact Insurance Co., [2014] A.J. No. 540, May 20, 2014, Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, S.J. Greckol J.

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...

An insurer's application for summary judgment was dismissed as the court could not determine the limitation period for a claim alleging bad faith.

Redden v. Manufacturers Life Insurance Co., [2013] N.B.J. No. 309, October 4, 2013, New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, P.C. Garnett J.

Continue Reading...

In reasons focusing on the need for deterrence, punitive damages awards of $1,500,000 and $3,000,000 were made against two insurers respectively. The court also awarded aggravated damages of $150,000 and $300,000 against each insurer respectively for breaching the peace of mind contracts.

Branco v. American Home Assurance Co., [2013] S.J. No. 151, March 21, 2013, Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, M.D. Acton J.

Continue Reading...

An insurer was found to have breached the duty of good faith when it decided to terminate benefits without any factual or legal grounds despite no damages actually occuring because benefits were reinstated before they were actually terminated.

Saskatchewan Government Insurance v. Wilson, [2012] S.J. No. 832, November 13, 2012, Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, W.J. Vancise, R.K. Ottenbriet and N.W. Caldwell JJ.A.

Continue Reading...

An action for bad faith may be severed from the underlying action disputing entitlement to insurance benefits.

Insurer's application for bifurcation of bad faith claim granted.

Cort v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, [2011] B.C.J. No. 853, May 5, 2011, British Columbia Supreme Court, Master P. Keighley

Continue Reading...

$50,000 awarded in punitive damages for refusing to pay a fire loss because of suspected arson.

An action by insureds to recover the proceeds from a fire insurance policy from their insurer after a fire, as well as aggravated and punitive damages for the insurer's refusal to pay. The action was allowed.

Sidhu v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co. [2011] B.C.J. No. 1573, August 17, 2011, British Columbia Supreme Court, T.C. Armstrong J.

Continue Reading...

Bad faith claims may be severed from the underlying entitlement action.

Defendant’s application to sever a bad faith claim from a claim for breach of contract.  Application granted.

Nayyar v. Manufacturers Life Insurance Co., [2010] B.C.J. No. 2200, October 7, 2010, British Columbia Supreme Court, P.W. Walker J. (in Chambers)

Continue Reading...

An insurance company must follow up on evidence after the initial decision to deny a claim is made. If they do not punitive damages may be assessed against them.

Appeal by the insurer from a jury’s award of punitive damages dismissed. By not following up on all the evidence relevant to the claim, withholding critical information from the adjuster engaged to investigate the claim and allowing the adjuster to present the results of the investigation in a partisan, biased and un-objective manner, the insurer’s actions were exceptional. A reasonable jury could have concluded that an award of punitive damages was rationally required to punish the insurer’s conduct.

Kings Mutual Insurance Co. v. Ackermann, [2010] N.S.J. No. 255, May 4, 2010, Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, J.W.S. Saunders, M.J. Hamilton and J.E. Fichaurd JJ.A.

Continue Reading...

An insurer may be orderd to pay aggravated damages if recommended benefits are refused without sufficient evidence supporting the denial.

The defendant insurer, was obliged to pay housekeeping and transportation benefits that it had unreasonably withheld from the plaintiff insured. The insurer’s refusal to pay benefits had caused intangible injuries and mental distress that were reasonably foreseeable and the insured was accordingly awarded $25,000 for mental distress.

McQueen v. Echelon General Insurance Co., [2009] O.J. No. 3965, September 28, 2009, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, C.R. Harris J.


Continue Reading...