Ontario Court of Appeal granted relief from forfeiture to insureds from non-compliance with statutory reporting requirements

Statutory reporting requirements under Ontario's Uninsured Automobile Coverage Regulation are not conditions precedent akin to limitation periods. The Courts may grant relief from forfeiture to insureds who have failed to comply with these requirements.

Dams v. TD Home and Auto Insurance Co., [2016] O.J. No. 26, 2016 ONCA 4, Ontario Court of Appeal, January 6, 2016, R.A. Blair, C.W. Hourigan, and D.M. Brown

Continue Reading...

An Insured was Ordered to Produce a Representative With Proper Knowledge

The insured refused to answer certain questions on discovery on the basis of relevance and lack of knowledge.  The court granted the insurer’s motion for an order that the insured produce an alternative representative with the proper knowledge and that the representative be compelled to answer the questions refused on the basis of relevance.

Roman Catholic Episcopal Corp. for the Diocese of Sault Ste. Marie v. Axa Insurance (Canada), [2015] O.J. No. 630, February 10, 2015, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, E.E. Gareau J.

Continue Reading...

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...