The court relied on grammar and punctuation to conclude a coverage provision was not ambiguous and the plain meaning was that coverage did not apply.

1088437 Ontario Inc. (c.o.b. Northmore Fuels) v. GCAN Insurance Co., [2013] O.J. No. 5407, November 28, 2013, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, J.R. MacKinnon J.

Continue Reading...

The insurer’s appeal from a decision that the insurer had a duty to defend a third party claim issued against the insureds in a personal injury action was dismissed. The third party claim fell within the general coverage provision, and the wording of the household exclusion clause did not apply to exclude an indirect, third party claim from coverage.

Bawden v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co., [2013] O.J. No. 5385, November 26, 2013, Ontario Court of Appeal, D.H. Doherty, S.T. Goudge and P.D. Lauwers JJ.A.

Continue Reading...

The insured under a policy of homeowner’s insurance was found to be entitled to a defence in a tort action in which he was named as a defendant in his personal capacity and in his capacity as an officer and director of several companies also named as defendants in the tort action. It was held that the allegations against the insured were broad enough to include conduct outside the insured’s corporate duties and for which the corporate defendants may not be liable.

Martin v. Royal & Sun Alliance Co. of Canada, [2013] B.C.J. No. 2468, November 12, 2013, British Columbia Supreme Court, N.H. Smith J.

Continue Reading...

Court sets aside noting in default on the basis that delivering a statement of claim to an insurer demonstrates an intention to defend.

Economical Mutual Insurance Co. v. Montgomery, [2013] O.J. No. 4753, October 22, 2013, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Master R. Dash

Continue Reading...

Successful application by the insured to have the insurer assume its defence. The insurer denied coverage on the basis the claim was not made during the policy period and the claim was excluded pursuant to an exclusion clause. The denial of coverage was based primarily upon the existence of administrative proceedings that proceeded before the Nova Scotia Real Estate Commission prior to the insurance policy coming into effect. The Court found there was no claim in existence at the time the policy was issued and granted the insured's application.

Hants Realty Ltd. v. Travelers Guarantee Co. of Canada, [2013] N.S.J. No. 347, June 24, 2013, Nova Scotia Supreme Court, J.E. Scanlan J.

Continue Reading...

The court considered the law of derivative claims in ordering an insurer to defend an insured where there were allegations of both wilful and negligent conduct. Despite potential conflict, the insurer retained the right to appoint and instruct counsel in the defence of the action.

2091533 Ontario Ltd. v. Vertigo Investments Ltd. [2013] O.J. No. 2698, June 10, 2013, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, L.C. Leitch J.

Continue Reading...

Insurer was found to owe insured a duty to defend in respect to claims for intentional assault and negligence.

Simone v. Economical Mutual Insurance Co., [2013] O.J. No. 2526, May 31, 2013, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, B.A. Glass J.

Continue Reading...

Commercial general liability insurer found to owe insured, a construction company, a duty to defend it in respect to a claim by a condominium corporation for alleged construction defects.

Canalta Construction Co. Ltd. v. Dominion of Canada General Insurance Co., [2013] A.J. No. 592, June 3, 2013, Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, V.O. Ouellette J.

Continue Reading...

An insured under an automobile insurance policy was entitled to a declaration that her insurer had a duty to defend her in a personal injury action relating to an accident that occurred while her driver's licence was expired. The failure to have a valid driver's licence was not a breach of the policy conditions as the insured had mistakenly believed her licence was valid at the time of the accident.

Kozel v. Personal Insurance Co., [2013] O.J. No. 2067, May 9, 2013, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, T.M. Wood J.

Continue Reading...

Liability coverage under a homeowner's insurance policy was excluded on the basis of a motorized vehicle exclusion for claims brought against the insureds and their son in relation to an incident where the son loaned an all-terrain vehicle owned by the father to a friend. However, the claims against the son and the mother were brought back into coverage by an exception to the exclusion for claims arising from the use or operation of a non-owned motor vehicle.

Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company v. Hannam, 2013 NLCA 37, May 24, 2013, Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal, Green C.J.N.L., Welsh and Harrington JJ.A.

Continue Reading...