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 appeal of a decision finding that the contractual limitation period in a disability insurance policy was ambiguous and therefore unenforceable was dismissed.

Kassburg v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada, [2014] O.J. No. 6222, December 29, 2014, Ontario Court of Appeal, D. Watt, K.M. van Rensburg and G.I. Pardu JJ.A.

Continue Reading...

The applicant homeowners’ summary judgment application brought against their title insurer for breach of contract and breach of good faith was dismissed on the basis that the loss was not covered.

MacDonald v. Chicago Title Insurance Co. of Canada, [2014] O.J. No. 6190, December 29, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, J. MacDonald 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...

Confirmation of coverage benefits displayed on an online portal and a confirmation statement did not amount to a certificate of coverage so as to create a contractual relationship between the insured and the insurer in an employer group disability benefits plan. The insured had no chance of success in a claim for breach of contract against the insurer when erroneously high disability coverage was corrected due to an employer error.

Sorensen v. Investors Group Financial Services Inc., [2014] N.S.J. No. 610, November 11, 2014, Nova Scotia Supreme Court, P.L. Muise J.

Continue Reading...

An insurer's obligation to indemnify an insured under a liability policy constituted a debt subject to garnishment.

Abuzour v. Heydary, [2014] O.J. No. 5199, October 28, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, M.A. Penny J.

Continue Reading...

Appeal by the insured of a summary judgment dismissing its subrogated claim. The motion judge dismissed the action on the basis the defendants could take advantage of the insured's insurance coverage as third party beneficiaries, or alternatively, the parties' contractual arrangements made it clear that the insured's policy of insurance was for the benefit of all those engaged in the insured's project. The appeal was dismissed on the basis the contractual arrangement could only be understood as an undertaking to obtain insurance for the benefit of the insured's contractors and subcontractors and a waiver of claims in respect of losses covered by such insurance.

De Beers Canada Inc. v. Ootahpan Co.,[2014] O.J. No. 4904, October 21, 2014, Ontario Court of Appeal, G.R. Strathy, P.S. Rouleau and C.W. Hourigan JJ.A.

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...

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...