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...

The Court of Appeal considered whether the addition of the words "compensation similar to benefits" to section 106 of the Insurance (Vehicle) Regulation changed the meaning of section 106 such that compensation in the form of sick bank accumulation should be deducted from damages awarded for past income loss. The Court found that the words "compensation similar to benefits" did not remove the element of insurance from a plain reading of the section. The accumulation of sick leave credits does not involve an element of insurance. Accordingly, sick banked time is not deductible.

Jordan v. Lowe [2013] B.C.J. NO. 2647, December 3, 2013, British Columbia Court of Appeal, R.T.A. Low, C.E. Hinkson and D.C. Harris JJ.A.

Continue Reading...

 

The Court concluded that the extension of coverage for Interruption by Civil Authority did not provide coverage for subsequent consequential losses that occurred after access by a civil authority was no longer denied.

Strata Plan KAS3058 v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co. (c.o.b. Travellers) [2013] B.C.J. No. 2651, December 2, 2013, British Columbia Supreme Court, M.L. Fleming J.

Continue Reading...

The issuer of a comprehensive general liability policy brought an application seeking a declaration that the issuer of an excess liability policy was required to contribute to defence costs incurred on behalf of their common insured. The Court of Appeal upheld a decision holding that there was no overlapping coverage for defence costs under the policies and, therefore, the excess insurer had no duty to contribute to the defence costs.

ACE INA Insurance v. Associated Electric & Gas Insurance Services Ltd., [2013] O.J. No. 5162, November 14, 2013, Ontario Court of Appeal, E.E. Gillese, R.G. Juriansz and G.R. Strathy JJ.A.

Continue Reading...

Insurer obligated to pay for insured's full-time care under Ontario Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule---Effective September 1, 2010, and not just for care provided during the 40 hours per week when the insured's mother would have been working but for the accident.

Henry v. Gore Mutual Insurance Co., [2013] O.J. No. 3792, July 16, 2013, Ontario Court of Appeal, J.M. Simmons, A. Hoy and G.R. Strathy JJ.A.

Continue Reading...

The insurer denied coverage for a fire that substantially destroyed its insured’s building on the basis the insured’s principal deliberately set the fire. Action by the insured against the insurer allowed because the insurer did not meet the burden of proof necessary to establish that the fire was deliberately set by the insured’s agent.

Number 216 Holdings Ltd. v. Intact Insurance Co., [2013] B.C.J. No 1549, July 17, 2013, British Columbia Supreme Court, S.A. Griffin J.

Continue Reading...