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...

Although the insured’s claim for indemnification under a commercial general liability insurance policy for the cost of destroying a contaminated product sold by the insured to the third party was for a fortuitous loss, it did not fall within coverage as the insured did not prove the event that caused the contamination.

Westaqua Commodity Group Ltd. v. Sovereign General Insurance Co., [2014] B.C.J. No. 284, February 18, 2014, British Columbia Supreme Court, J. Steeves J.

Continue Reading...

 

Application by insurer for declaration that homeowner's policy which excluded the cost of making good faulty material or workmanship did not apply to loss in circumstances where statement of claim alleged faulty workmanship was denied on basis that the cause of loss might not be limited to faulty workmanship.

Hallett v. Fitzpatrick, [2013] N.J. No. 438, December 19, 2013, Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court, C. Thompson J.

Continue Reading...

 

Errors & Omissions Insurer entitled to decline a defence to its insured, a lawyer, on the basis of a notwithstanding clause which allowed it to decline to defend an insured on the basis of a reasonable investigation rather than on the basis of the pleadings.

Juroviesky and Ricci LLP v. Lawyers Professional Indemnity Co., [2014] O.J. No. 40, January 6, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, W.M. Matheson J.

Continue Reading...

 

In Willoughby v. Pilot Insurance Co., the insurer provided home insurance on the insureds’ home, which was destroyed by fire. The insurance policy included a Guaranteed Replacement Cost on Buildings (“GRC”) endorsement. After the fire, the insureds decided not to rebuild or repair the fire-damaged home. Instead, they purchased a home in another location and moved there. In light of the insureds’ decision to relocate instead of rebuilding, the insurer took the position that they were not entitled to payment under the GRC endorsement but only basic fire loss coverage. The insureds commenced an action against the insurer and sought summary judgment.

Willoughby v. Pilot Insurance Co., a Division of Aviva Canada Inc., [2014] O.J. No. 45, January 7, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, D.G. Stinson 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 schedule or list of vehicles required under a fleet policy is not an "amendment" to an insurance policy. Relief from forfeiture relates to a proof of loss and is not an available remedy unless coverage has first been established.

Northbridge General Insurance Corp. v. 943240 Alberta Ltd., [2013] A.J. No. 1453, December 31, 2013, Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, J.T. McCarthy J.

Continue Reading...

Appeal of a finding that the lessee of a vehicle was the "owner" of the vehicle by virtue of the definition of "owner" under the Motor Vehicle Act such that the defendant driver was not an additional insured. Appeal dismissed. Although it was doubtful the lessee was an "owner" under the policy wording, the vehicle was licensed in the lessee's name and the defendant driver was not an additional insured.

Lombard General Insurance Co. of Canada v. Canadian Direct Insurance Inc. [2013] B.C.J. No. 2673, December 5, 2013, British Columbia Court of Appeal, P.D. Lowry, D.M. Smith and E.A. Bennett JJ.A.

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...