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...

After thoroughly reviewing the law on the defintion of "accident", the court concluded the insured's foolish attempt to take-off with only one functioning engine in a two-engine aircraft, resulting in a crash, was still an accident.

Van Berlo v. Aim Underwriting Ltd., [2014] O.J. No. 3885, August 19, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, V. Mitrow J.

Continue Reading...

Summary trial application by the insurer for an order that the bank's claim under a standard mortgage clause be dismissed because the bank failed to comply with the applicable limitation period. The court dismissed the insurer's application and granted leave to bring a further summary trial application after there had been document production and examinations for discovery. The court found that evidence on why the insurer did not pay the bank was required in order to make a determination of the issues.

Royal Bank of Canada v. Canadian Northern Shield Insurance Co. [2014] B.C.J. No. 1974, July 28, 2014, British Columbia Supreme Court, W.J. Harris J.

Continue Reading...

The insured’s property damage claim under a homeowner’s policy for damage to her house alleged to have been caused by a contractor fell within the “faulty workmanship” exclusion of the insured’s insurance policy, which also excluded resulting damage from faulty workmanship.

Monk v. Farmers' Mutual Insurance Co. (Lindsay), [2014] O.J. 3509, June 27, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, E.J. Koke J.

Continue Reading...

A farmer’s action for damages for bodily injuries and accident benefits arising out of an accident that occurred while he was driving an uninsured all-terrain vehicle on a public road was statute barred by virtue of the operation of Ontario’s 267.6(1) of the Insurance Act and s. 30(1)(a) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule. Although it was exclusively used as a farming vehicle, the ATV did not qualify as a self-propelled implement of husbandry and therefore did not fall within an exception to the compulsory motor vehicle insurance scheme in the province.

Matheson v. Lewis, [2014] O.J. No. 3304, July 11, 2014, Ontario Court of Appeal, R.G. Juriansz, M.H. Tulloch and G.R. Strathy JJ.A.

Continue Reading...

At appeal, the court upheld the trial judge’s decision that a tenant’s insertion of cardboard into furnace controls which caused the furnace to run continually until failure, did not fall within the mechanical breakdown or pollution exclusion under the insured landlord’s all-risk insurance policy. The court also upheld the lower court’s decision that the letter from the adjuster advising no proof of loss was required constituted waiver of the insured’s requirement to file the proof of loss.

O'Byrne v. Farmers' Mutual Insurance Co., [2014] O.J. No. 3303, July 11, 2014, Ontario Court of Appeal, G.J. Epstein, S.E. Pepall and K.M. van Rensburg JJ.A.

Continue Reading...

Reasonable preventative measures taken by an insured to prevent probable future damages may not be recoverable where the policy excludes coverage for any defect or fault in material or design. This was the case even where an insured loss occurred in an identical piece of machinery as a result of the same defect for which the insured then took preventative steps. The insured’s costs to repair and business losses were a result of its own precautionary measures, and not an accidental or fortuitous event.

Mississippi River Power Corp. v. Municipal Electric Assn. Reciprocal Insurance Exchange [2014] O.J. No. 3007, June 23, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, M.Z. Charbonneau J.

Continue Reading...

What constitutes a claim for the purposes of the definition of “claim” under a policy of insurance is determined according to an objective test in light of the reality of what the third party communicated to the insured by words or conduct. This does not always require a specific threat of legal proceedings. In this case, a reasonable insured, in the context of the complaint, would have concluded that the complainant intended to hold the insured liable when he simply stated that the insured should cover his costs.

Hants Realty Ltd. v. Travelers Guarantee Co. of Canada [2014] N.S.J. No. 330, June 25, 2014, Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, L.L. Oland, D.P.S. Farrar and P. Bryson JJ.A.

Continue Reading...

Two or more errors, omissions or negligent acts are “related” for the purposes of a policy where there is a sufficient association or connection between them, reading the policy as a whole and bearing in mind its objective. In determining whether there is a sufficient association or connection, the court must consider the similarities and difference between the nature and kind of the alleged misconduct which underlies each claim, and the kind and character of the losses for which recovery is sought in each claim.

Simpson Wigle Law LLP v. Lawyers’ Professional Indemnity Co. [2014] O.J. No. 3037, June 25, 2014, Ontario Court of Appeal, E.E. Gillese, K.M. van Rensburg and C.W. Hourigan JJ.A.

Continue Reading...