The insurer was obligated to assume the defence of an additional named insured because all the plaintiff’s claims potentially arose out of or were related to the primary insured’s operations.

Sinclair v. Markham (Town), [2014] O.J. No. 4202, September 10, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, E.P. Belobaba J.

Continue Reading...

Coverage was not excluded as against two insureds as a result of an alleged intentional act on the part of another insured, because the claim in negligence against the two insureds was distinct and not derivative of the intentional tort claimed against the other insured.

D.E. v. Unifund Assurance Co., [2014] O.J. No. 4271, September 11, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, D.G. Stinson J.

Continue Reading...

Defendant certified financial planner was not covered under a general liability policy in respect to a claim arising from the plaintiffs' investment in a specific project, which turned out to be a fraudulent scheme.

Yanaky v. Arch Insurance (Canada), [2014] O.J. No. 3951, August 27, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, S.E. Firestone J.

Continue Reading...

Insured's application for a declaration that the insurer owed a duty to defend regarding an action commenced by a contractor seeking damages for breach of contract, quantum meruit and unjust enrichment for unpaid work . The insured's application was dismissed because the pleadings did not contain a claim for a "wrongful act" within the meaning of the policy.

Thunder Bay Masonic Foundation v. Sovereign General Insurance Co. [2014] O.J. No. 3660, July 11, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, F.B. Fitzpatrick J.

Continue Reading...

What constitutes a claim for the purposes of the definition of “claim” under a policy of insurance is determined according to an objective test in light of the reality of what the third party communicated to the insured by words or conduct. This does not always require a specific threat of legal proceedings. In this case, a reasonable insured, in the context of the complaint, would have concluded that the complainant intended to hold the insured liable when he simply stated that the insured should cover his costs.

Hants Realty Ltd. v. Travelers Guarantee Co. of Canada [2014] N.S.J. No. 330, June 25, 2014, Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, L.L. Oland, D.P.S. Farrar and P. Bryson JJ.A.

Continue Reading...

Absolute pollution exclusion in commercial general liability policy precluded coverage for a claim arising from a spill of home heating oil.

Breton Petroleum Ltd. v. Aviva Insurance Co. of Canada, [2014] N.S.J. No. 298, June 16, 2014, Nova Scotia Supreme Court, K. Coady J.

Continue Reading...

It is appropriate for insurer to seek contribution from other insurers by filing an originating application pursuant to Rule 3.2(1) of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench Rules.

Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Corp. v. Intact Insurance Co., [2014] A.J. No. 611, June 10, 2014, Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, W.P. Sullivan J.

Continue Reading...

No duty to defend was found where the true nature of the claim could not be determined from the pleadings.

University of Waterloo v. Scottish & York Insurance Co., [2014] O.J. No. 1103, February 24, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, D.J. Gordon J.

Continue Reading...

Despite an exclusion for bodily injury caused by the use of a gun, the insurer had  a duty to defend claims the insured had breached its duties related to its capacity as an occupier of the premises where the shooting occured.

Kinkade v. 947014 Ontario Inc. (c.o.b. The Silver Dollar), [2014] O.J. NO. 1271, March 20, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, G. Roccamo 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...