"Faulty workmanship" exclusion didn't apply for resulting damage

The exception for resulting damage was read in to the exclusion clause for “the cost of faulty workmanship” where the exclusion clause was silent on the resulting damage.

Monk v. Farmers' Mutual Insurance Co. (Lindsay), [2015] O.J. No. 6849, 2015 ONCA 911, Ontario Court of Appeal, December 23, 2015, K.N. Feldman, E.A. Cronk and G. Huscroft JJ.A.

Continue Reading...

Insured who suffered injury two days prior to expiration of waiting period was not entitled to benefits under a Group Insurance policy

There was no coverage for insured who suffered injury two days prior to expiration of waiting period for coverage under group disability policy.

Funk v. Blue Cross Life Insurance Co., [2015] M.J. No. 294, November 20, 2015, Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, R.A. Dewar J. Continue Reading...

Allegation of negligence for failing to hire a competent contractor to remove trees from recreational property fell within coverage for

The insureds applied for a declaration that their insurer had a duty to defend them in an action where the plaintiff was injured by a tree that was being removed on an uninsured property owned by the insureds. The court found the insurer had a duty to defend the insureds because the true nature of the allegation that the insureds were negligent for failing to hire a competent contractor was a claim arising out of the actions of an individual and was covered under the insured's homeowner's policy which provided coverage for "personal actions anywhere in the world."

Hill v. Intact Insurance Co., [2015] O.J. No. 5898, November 10, 2015, Ontario Superior Court of Justice Ottawa, Ontario, P.E. Roger J.

Continue Reading...

A pedestrian who was injured in a hit and run accident was not entitled to coverage under the unidentified automobile provisions of her own automobile policy because she was not an “occupant” of a vehicle at the time she was injured.

Ostrowercha v. Co-Operators General Insurance Co., 2015 ABQB 636, October 15, 2015, Alberta Court of Queens Bench, S.M. Sanderman J.

Continue Reading...

An insurer who agrees to provide coverage for malicious prosecution has effectively contracted out of the fortuity principle and it should not be applied so as to preclude coverage the insurer agreed to provide.

Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v. The Sovereign General Insurance Company, 2015 ONCA 702, October 22, 2015, Court of Appeal for Ontario, G.J. Epstein, S.E. Pepall and M.L. Benotto JJ.A.

Continue Reading...

The insured’s claims against the strata corporation and the strata insurer were dismissed after a fire caused by a tenant’s clandestine drug laboratory only caused damage to the insured’s strata unit. The quantum of damage was less than the strata corporation’s $50,000 deductible, which was not an unreasonable deductible value.

Louie v. Strata Plan VR-1323, [2015] B.C.J. No. 2186, October 8, 2015, British Columbia Supreme Court, B.M. Greyell J.

Continue Reading...

The insured was not in breach of his insurance policy when he crashed his vehicle into a restaurant after consuming a bowl of Kava (a traditional Fijian drink). There was insufficient evidence to prove that a single bowl of Kava would cause the symptoms experienced by the insured. The insured did not provide a false statement by saying he had not consumed drugs in the 12 hours prior to the accident.

Venkataya v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, [2015] B.C.J. No. 1896, September 3, 2015, British Columbia Supreme Court, P.G. Voith J.

Continue Reading...

An insurer was obligated to pay for the increased cost of repairs due to the additional work required under the Building Code.  The relevant exclusion clause did not apply because it only excluded repairs relating to "by-laws" and the Building Code was not considered a "by-law".

Choukair v. Allstate Insurance Co. of Canada, [2015] O.J. No. 4361, August 20, 2015, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, M.J. Quigley J.

Continue Reading...

Bullying was found to be an Intentional Act and Liability Coverage was Excluded (Action 2)

An exclusion clause excluding liability coverage for claims arising from bodily injury caused by an intentional act applied to exclude coverage for claims for alleged bullying.

C.S. V. TD Home and Auto Insurance Co., [2015] O.J. No. 3063, June 11, 2015, Ontario Court of Appeal, J.C. MacPherson, E.A. Cronk and E.E. Gillese JJ.A

Continue Reading...

Bullying was found to be an Intentional Act and Liability Coverage was Excluded (Action 1)

An exclusion clause which excludes liabilty coverage for claims arising from failure to take steps to prevent physical, psychological or emotional harassment is clear on its face and excludes coverage for claims in negligence for failure to prevent bullying being perpetrated by the daughter of the insureds

D.E. v. Unifund Assurance Co., [2015] O.J. No. 3059, June 11, 2015, Ontario Court of Appeal, J.C. MacPherson, E.A. Cronk and E.E. Gillese JJ.A

Continue Reading...