Ontario Court of Appeal granted relief from forfeiture to insureds from non-compliance with statutory reporting requirements

Statutory reporting requirements under Ontario's Uninsured Automobile Coverage Regulation are not conditions precedent akin to limitation periods. The Courts may grant relief from forfeiture to insureds who have failed to comply with these requirements.

Dams v. TD Home and Auto Insurance Co., [2016] O.J. No. 26, 2016 ONCA 4, Ontario Court of Appeal, January 6, 2016, R.A. Blair, C.W. Hourigan, and D.M. Brown

Continue Reading...

"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...

The legal causation test for statutory accident benefits is the "but for" test

Despite language indicative of the "material contribution" causation test, the legal causation test for statutory accident benefits is the "but for" test.

Kozhikhov v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, [2015] B.C.J. No. 2785, 2015 BCCA 515, British Columbia Court of Appeal, December 17, 2015, M.E. Saunders, D.M. Smith, and A.W. MacKenzie JJ.A.

Continue Reading...

Marketability of a property is affected by municipal work orders even if they are not registered against title of the property

Municipal work orders do not need to be registered against title to affect the marketability of the property.

MacDonald v. Chicago Title Insurance Co. of Canada, [2015] O.J. No. 6350, December 3, 2015, Ontario Court of Appeal, E.A. Cronk, C.W. Hourigan, M.L. Benotto 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...

Location of automobile insurance policy is not a factor that satisfies the real and substantial jurisdictional connection test

The plaintiff appealed a jurisdictional ruling which found no real and substantial connection between the parties, the accident in which the plaintiff was injured and Ontario. A five‑judge panel of the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and affirmed Tamminga v. Tamminga, 2014 ONCA 478, which stands for the principle that a plaintiff's Ontario automobile insurance policy is not a factor that satisfies the real and substantial connection test.

Forsythe v. Westfall, [2015] O.J. No. 6134, December 29, 2015, Ontario Court of Appeal, E.E. Gillese, R.A. Blair, J.L. MacFarland, S.E. Pepall and M.L. Benotto JJ.A.

Continue Reading...

Regulation capping benefits for attendant care services provided by a family member at economic loss sustained by that family member did not apply retrospectively.

Davis v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co., 2015 ONSC 6624, October 27, 2015, Ontario Superior Court of Justice,E. Quinlan J.

Continue Reading...

A Covenant to Insure is a Bar to a Subrogated Claim against a Subcontractor

A covenant to insure operated to bar a subrogated claim against a subcontractor. A subcontractor was also considered an unnamed insured even though the policy did not contain any wording expanding the definition of an insured beyond that of the named insured.

DCMS GP (Dufferin-Steeles) Inc. v. Caribbean Tower Cranes Ltd., [2015] O.J. No. 4364, August 19, 2015, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, M.D. Faieta J.

Continue Reading...

A Party Advancing a Claim for Insurance Monies is not necessarily an Adverse Party

A party that is not advancing a claim for insurance money cannot be an adverse party for the purposes of litigation under section 176 of the Insurance Act, RSNB 1973, c.I-12.

Blue Cross Life Insurance Company of Canada v. Crawford, [2015] N.B.J. No. 147, May 27, 2015, New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, R.T. French J.

Continue Reading...