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...

 

The Court concluded that the extension of coverage for Interruption by Civil Authority did not provide coverage for subsequent consequential losses that occurred after access by a civil authority was no longer denied.

Strata Plan KAS3058 v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co. (c.o.b. Travellers) [2013] B.C.J. No. 2651, December 2, 2013, British Columbia Supreme Court, M.L. Fleming J.

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...

The court gave effect to the terms of an insuring agreement for a professional liability claims-made-and-reported policy, which provided that the failure to disclose any situation or circumstance which may in the future result in a claim excluded coverage of any action subsequently emanating therefrom. As coverage for this action never existed, the insured could not seek relief against forfeiture.

Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London v. All Spec Home Inspections, [2013] O.J. No. 5246, November 19, 2013, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, J.W. Quinn J.

Continue Reading...

On an application for summary judgment it was held that the plaintiff’s 19 year old girlfriend was not a person under the age of 21 in his care and she was therefore not an unnamed insured under the policy. An exclusion for loss or damage resulting from the criminal or intentional act of any person insured by the policy therefore did not apply.

Ryan v. Canadian Farm Insurance Corp., [2013] M.J. No. 391, November 8, 2013, Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, Master J.M. Cooper.

Continue Reading...

The insured under a policy of homeowner’s insurance was found to be entitled to a defence in a tort action in which he was named as a defendant in his personal capacity and in his capacity as an officer and director of several companies also named as defendants in the tort action. It was held that the allegations against the insured were broad enough to include conduct outside the insured’s corporate duties and for which the corporate defendants may not be liable.

Martin v. Royal & Sun Alliance Co. of Canada, [2013] B.C.J. No. 2468, November 12, 2013, British Columbia Supreme Court, N.H. Smith J.

Continue Reading...

The insured was granted leave to appeal the decision of an arbitrator where the arbitrator took a "fault-based" analysis in determining an insurer's obligations under a policy rather than applying the principles of contractual interpretation.

Bal v. British Columbia (Ministry of Agriculture), [2013] B.C.J. No. 2345, October 25, 2013, British Columbia Supreme Court, L.A. Warren J.

Continue Reading...

Dispute over the meaning of "making good" faulty workmanship in an exclusion clause of a builders risk policy. The court found the clause was ambiguous and it was construed contra proferentem against the insurers.

Ledcor Construction Ltd. v. Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Co., [2013] A.J. No. 1088, October 7, 2013, Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, T.D. Clackson J.

Continue Reading...

Action by the insured for interpretation of a long-term disability plan. The insured was on long-term disability after she was injured in a motor vehicle accident. She received a global amount from the defendant in settlement of the motor vehicle litigation. The insurer deducted from her benefits payments some of the money she received in settlement for wage compensation; otherwise, she would be overpaid for that head of damage. The plan included a provision which stated that if a lump sum payment is made under judgment or settlement for loss of future income or earning capacity, the insurer will be "entitled to make a determination of the amount of compensation this represents on a monthly basis and to reduce the benefits for each month after the settlement or judgment by the amount of the Employee's overcompensation." The court held that the insurer was entitled to deduct an amount each month for wage compensation to make up for the insured's overpayment since receiving her settlement, and that the onus was on the plaintiff seeking benefits, and not the insurer, to prove how much of her global settlement amount was comprised of wage compensation versus other heads of damages.

Carter v. New Brunswick, [2013] N.B.J. No. 274, August 12, 2013, New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, J. Ouellette J.

Continue Reading...