The Court found on a special case under Rule 9-3 that the insurer did not have a duty to defend the insureds with respect to claims for negligent acts occurring within the policy period when the resulting damage (i.e., a landslide) occurred several months after the policy expired.

Canadian Northern Shield Insurance Co. v. Intact Insurance Co., [2015] B.C.J. No. 943, May 11, 2015, British Columbia Supreme Court, B. Fisher J.

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...

Damage caused to windows by cleaning company during construction of building was not covered by all-risk policy containing exclusion for cost of making good faulty workmanship.

Ledcor Construction Ltd. v. Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Co., [2015] A.J. No. 338, March 27, 2015, Alberta Court of Appeal, J.E.L. Côté, J. Watson and F.F. Slatter JJ.A.

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...

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...

The insured’s property damage claim under a homeowner’s policy for damage to her house alleged to have been caused by a contractor fell within the “faulty workmanship” exclusion of the insured’s insurance policy, which also excluded resulting damage from faulty workmanship.

Monk v. Farmers' Mutual Insurance Co. (Lindsay), [2014] O.J. 3509, June 27, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, E.J. Koke J.

Continue Reading...

Significant aggravated and punitive damages were warranted due to the insurer’s breach of the duty of utmost good faith and the effect of that breach on the insured. The insurer breached the duty of utmost good faith where: it failed to fairly assess the need for rehabilitation services; it failed to disclose an IME relevant to the rehabilitation issue until days before trial; it failed to meaningfully address a decision of the Tax Court regarding the taxability of benefits; and the accuracy of one of its witnesses’ testimony wrongly favoured the insurer.

Industrial Alliance Insurance and Financial Services Inc. v. Brine [2014] N.S.J. No. 328, June 18, 2014, Nova Scotia Supreme Court, C.A. Bourgeois J.

Continue Reading...

The insurer denied coverage for water damage to the insured’s basement because it was caused by “continuous or repeated seepage”, which was an excluded risk. The court found that the insurer was incorrect in determining this to have been the cause of the water damage, and held that the exclusion did not apply to the loss. The court did not award punitive damages because the conduct of the insurer in denying the claim was only misguided and could not be descibed as malicious, oppressive or highanded.

Moffat v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co. [2014] O.J. No. 2124, April 25, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, B. Babcock Deputy J.

Continue Reading...

Application on the issue of whether the insurer had a duty to defend the insured in legal proceedings alleging damages caused by defective work. The insured’s plumbing work was completed while the insurance policy was valid. Years later, the plumbing system failed and caused damage. The insurer argued the pleadings did not allege facts showing that an occurrence causing damage took place before the expiry of the policy and in the alternative, the damage was excluded from coverage as a result of the "your work" exclusion. The insurer's application was dismissed because there was an occurrence during the policy period and the insurer could not demonstrate that the exclusion clause clearly applied.

Co-operators General Insurance Co. v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co., [2014] N.S.J. No. 111, January 27, 2014, Nova Scotia Supreme Court, M.J. Wood J.

Continue Reading...

 

Application by insurer for declaration that homeowner's policy which excluded the cost of making good faulty material or workmanship did not apply to loss in circumstances where statement of claim alleged faulty workmanship was denied on basis that the cause of loss might not be limited to faulty workmanship.

Hallett v. Fitzpatrick, [2013] N.J. No. 438, December 19, 2013, Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court, C. Thompson J.

Continue Reading...