Application by the insurer for a dismissal of the plaintiffs' action on the basis the disputes were resolved by a binding settlement agreements. The court found the settlement agreements were binding and dismissed the plaintiffs' action. There was no evidence that the plaintiffs were subject to undue influence or that they were not mentally competent when they signed the settlement agreements. Further, the settlement agreements were not unconscionable.

Palaniuk v. Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Co. of Canada, [2014] B.C.J. No. 2539, October 10, 2014, British Columbia Supreme Court, P. Rogers J.

Continue Reading...

Summary trial application by the insurer for an order that the bank's claim under a standard mortgage clause be dismissed because the bank failed to comply with the applicable limitation period. The court dismissed the insurer's application and granted leave to bring a further summary trial application after there had been document production and examinations for discovery. The court found that evidence on why the insurer did not pay the bank was required in order to make a determination of the issues.

Royal Bank of Canada v. Canadian Northern Shield Insurance Co. [2014] B.C.J. No. 1974, July 28, 2014, British Columbia Supreme Court, W.J. Harris J.

Continue Reading...

Plaintiff's claim against defendant insurance brokers dismissed on basis that plaintiff adduced no expert evidence of standard of care and there was sufficient insurance available to plaintiff.

Midas Investment Corp. v. Dominion of Canada General Insurance Co., [2013] O.J. No. 3403, July 22, 2013, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, K.E. Swinton J.

Continue Reading...

An application for summary judgment by an insurer seeking dismissal of two related motor vehicle actions was dismissed on the basis the insurer had not met the onus of showing there was no genuine issue for trial.

Sobolewski v. Aviva Canada Inc., [2013] O.J. No. 3155, July 5, 2013, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, R.A. Lococo J.

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...

Action in negligence against a broker for failure to insure the plaintiff's excavator. The action was dismissed because the broker was found to have met the standard of care by advising the plaintiff of the need to provide specific information for the excavator to be insured. The plaintiff failed to provide the information and the court found the plaintiff understood the risks associated with that decision.

Colangelo Niagara Inc. v. York Fire & Casualty Insurance Co., [2013] O.J. No. 1964, April 29, 2013, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, M.N. Varpio J.

Continue Reading...

An insurer will be responsible for paying administrative fees associated with damage caused by an insured

Insured was liable to pay a 10% administrative fee levied by Nova Scotia Department of Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal for the repair of a culvert damaged by motor vehicle driven by an employee of the insured.

Nova Scotia (Attorney General) v. Jacques Home Town Dry Cleaners, [2013] N.S.J. No. 4, January 3, 2013, Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, J.W.S. Saunders, L.L. Oland and J.E. Fichaud JJ.A.

Continue Reading...

Strict proof of business loss may not be required when the insured peril destroys documentation

When the particulars of a loss are destroyed by the insured peril the court will be more sympathetic to the insured when determing the quantum of the loss

Visual Design Consultants Inc. v. Royal and Sun Alliance Insurance Co. of Canada, [2012] N.S.J. No. 682, December 18, 2012, Nova Scotia Supreme Court, R.W. Wright J.

Continue Reading...

Coverage will not be granted where the loss incurred is due to unsuitable packing of goods being shipped

The Federal Court of Appeal held that the Federal Court erred in holding that the insured bore the onus of proving that damage to goods being transported was a fortuitous loss, but nevertheless dismissed the appeal on the basis that the loss was excluded by an exclusion for insufficient or unsuitable packing of the goods being shipped.

Feuiltault Solution Systems Inc. v. Zurich Canada, [2012] F.C.J. No. 1036, July 30, 2012, Federal Court of Appeal, Létourneau, Pelletier and Mainville JJ.A.

Continue Reading...

An insured must establish the date that damage occurred to claim benefits under an insurance policy

The claim by the owner ("Lupastin") of a trailer for insurance coverage for damage to the roof of the trailer caused by a storm was dismissed where the court found that Lupastin could not establish the damage took place during the time the trailer was insured by the Saskatchewan Government Insurance ("SGI").

Lupastin v. Saskatchewan Government Insurance [2012] S.J. No. 443, July 23, 2012, Saskatchewan Provincial Court (Civil Division), M.J. Hinds Prov. Ct. J.

Continue Reading...