British Columbia Insurance Blog : Canada Insurance Lawyer & Attorney : Michael Thomas of Harper Grey Law Firm : British Columbia, Vancouver

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.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

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.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

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.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

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.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The appeal by 1540039 Ontario Ltd (the "Plaza Owner") from the dismissal of its application for a declaration that its tenant's insurer had a duty to defend was dismissed where the court found that the claim of negligence arose out of the Plaza Owner's conduct as owner of the property, not as landlord.

1540039 Ontario Ltd. v. Farmers' Mutual Insurance Co. (Lindsay), [2012] O.J. No. 1380, March 30, 2012, Ontario Court of Appeal, K.N. Feldman, A. Hoy JJ.A. and J.M. Spence J. (ad hoc)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A plaintiff was successful in seeking a declaration that she was entitled to coverage on the basis that her motor vehicle insurer had not established she was impaired at the time of the accident and she was awarded punitive damages for the insurer’s bad faith conduct with respect to the claim.

McDonald v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, [2012] B.C.J. No. 372, February 24, 2012, British Columbia Supreme Court, S.K. Ballance J.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Slawter v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, [2011] B.C.J. No. 2595, September 2, 2011, British Columbia Provincial Court, D.A. St. Pierre Prov. Ct.J.

A dispute over the standard of proof to be applied in civil cases where an allegation of fraud is made. The Court found that the only standard of proof to be applied is the balance of probabilities.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The applicants sought a declaration that their home insurer defend them in relation to a claim brought against them. The application was allowed.

Aitken v. Unifund Assurance Co., [2011] O.J. No. 5083, September 29, 2011, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, B. Warkentin J.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Evidence of insured's girlfriend sufficient to corroborate insured's evidence of the involvement of an unidentified driver in a motor vehicle accident such that he was entitled to coverage under the Family Protection Endorsement OPCF 44R.

Pepe v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., [2011] O.J. No. 2011, May 3, 2011, Ontario Court of Appeal, D.H. Doherty, M.J. Moldaver and K.N. Feldman JJ.A.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Successful application by an additional insured for a declaration that the insurer was required to defend the action and third-party claims against it.

Kelowna (City) v. AXA Pacific Insurance Co., [2010] B.C.J. No. 1287, June 1, 2010, British Columbia Supreme Court, C.A. Wedge J.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link