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...

The insured was in a motor vehicle accident at a time when her driver’s license was expired. The insured was entitled to be relieved from forfeiture for non-compliance with the statutory condition and the insurer had a duty to defend the motor vehicle accident action and indemnify the insured for liability.

Kozel v. Personal Insurance Co., [2014] O.J. No. 753, February 19, 2014, Ontario Court of Appeal, M. Rosenberg, J.C. MacPherson and H.S. LaForme JJ.A.

Continue Reading...

The court granted a declaration that an insurer was required to defend an additional named insured in action in which identical allegations were made against the named insured.

Zhou v. Markham (Town), [2014] O.J. No. 351, January 21, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, C.J. Brown J.

Continue Reading...

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...