Summary judgment application to determine the meaning of the word “load” in the following exclusion clause:  “The weight of the load exceeding the registered lifting or supporting capacity of any machine.”  The insured owned an articulating boom lift that was damaged when the operator used the boom in an attempt to lever the lift out of mud in which it was stuck.  The court concluded the word “load” meant more than the weight in the manbasket and would include external resistance being applied to the lift or overall force to which the lift was being subjected.  Accordingly, the exclusion clause was engaged and the insured’s claim was dismissed.

Aspen Interiors Inc. v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co., [2015] S.J. No. 25, January 5, 2015, Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, R.S. Smith J.

 

Continue Reading...

The insured was granted relief from forfeiture for failing to meet the contractually imposed deadline for submitting a claim for long term disability benefits.

Dube v. RBC Life Insurance Co., [2015] O.J. No. 42, January 7, 2015, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, M.A. Garson J.

Continue Reading...

Soil that is contaminated by a heating oil spill is not insured property under a policy of property insurance. Further, the doctrine of imminent peril does not apply to the clean-up costs as the risk of oil vapours is not an imminent peril and damage is not inevitable.

Garden View Restaurant Ltd. v. Portage La Prairie Mutual Insurance Co., [2014] N.S.J. No. 675, December 22, 2014, Nova Scotia Supreme Court, M. Stewart J.

Continue Reading...

An application by the insurer for a declaration that it had no obligation to defend or indemnify the insured based on a material breach was dismissed. The insured argued successfully that it was entitled to relief from forfeiture pursuant to s.98 of the Courts of Justice Act as the breach was one of imperfect compliance rather than non-compliance.

Aviva Canada Inc v. Gravenhurst Taxi Ltd., [2014] O.J. No. 5644, November 3, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, T.M. Wood J.

Continue Reading...

The defendant commenced third party proceedings against the insured's insurer seeking a declaration that the insurer owed a duty to defend and indemnify it against the plaintiff’s claims. The plaintiff subsequently discontinued its claim against the insured. The insurer brought an application pursuant to rule 21 for an order dismissing the third party claim on the basis it disclosed no reasonable cause of action. The insurer argued the true nature and substance of the plaintiff's claim did not concern the operations of the insured. The application was dismissed because the pleadings alleged the defndant was liable for breach of contract as a result of the negligence of the insured. This fell squarely within the insurance coverage.

Innvest Real Estate Investment Trust (c.o.b. Travelodge Airport North Bay) v. 1328151 Ontario Inc. (c.o.b. Paul Davis Systems of North Bay Nipissing), [2014] O.J. No. 4799, October 10, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, M.G. Ellies J.

Continue Reading...

Where a person is not a named insured on an automobile policy and that person operates a vehicle listed on that policy, the policy holder for the vehicle is not absolutely liable under section 258 of the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.8, if that person is involved in a motor vehicle accident. Section 258 will not be engaged unless it is established that the operator of the vehicle was an insured under the policy. To be an insured under the policy, the operator of the vehicle must have been either a named insured or a person driving with the named insured’s consent at the time of the accident, and the vehicle being driven must have been owned by a named insured.

Brown v. Belair v. Wawanesa, [2014] O.J. No. 4638, October 2, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, S.E. Firestone J.

Continue Reading...

Coverage was not excluded as against two insureds as a result of an alleged intentional act on the part of another insured, because the claim in negligence against the two insureds was distinct and not derivative of the intentional tort claimed against the other insured.

D.E. v. Unifund Assurance Co., [2014] O.J. No. 4271, September 11, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, D.G. Stinson J.

Continue Reading...

The insured’s 19-year-old girlfriend was not considered an unnamed insured despite the fact that she was a member of the insured’s household. The definition of insured under the policy, which included any person under 21 “in the care of” the named insured, was never meant to capture a typical live-in romantic relationship.

 

 

Ryan v. Canadian Farm Insurance Corp.,[2014] M.J. No. 254, August 28, 2014, Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, C. Suche J.

Continue Reading...

Insured's action against insurer on a policy of critical illness insurance was dismissed on the basis that the insured's cancer showed signs of developing within 90 days of the effective date of the policy thereby triggering a 90-day exclusion clause.

MacQuarrie v. National Bank Life Insurance Co., [2014] O.J. No. 4130, February 27, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, M.A. Sanderson J.

Continue Reading...

Defendant certified financial planner was not covered under a general liability policy in respect to a claim arising from the plaintiffs' investment in a specific project, which turned out to be a fraudulent scheme.

Yanaky v. Arch Insurance (Canada), [2014] O.J. No. 3951, August 27, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, S.E. Firestone J.

Continue Reading...