British Columbia Insurance Blog : Canada Insurance Lawyer & Attorney : Michael Thomas of Harper Grey Law Firm : British Columbia, Vancouver

No coverage under homeowner policy for claim against vendor for fraudulent misrepresentation leading to sale of home.

Chrysanthis v. Ali, [2013] O.J. No. 1239, March 18, 2013, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, D.F. Baltman J.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

An action for coverage under a homeowner's insurance policy to recover the full value of legally cultivated marijuana plants was dismissed. Coverage was limited to $1000 per plant as per the extended coverage provisions of the policy. The fact that the plants were not grown for "landscaping" purposes did not bring them under the general contents coverage under the policy.

Stewart v. TD General Insurance Co., [2013] O.J. No. 955, March 7, 2013, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, J.A. Ramsay J.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Application for a declaration that pursuant to the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. 1.8 and Ontario’s Standard Automobile Policy (“SAP”) the insurer had no obligation to defend its insured against a claim after paying its policy limits to the plaintiff. The application was dismissed and the insurer was ordered to continue to bear the cost of defending the insured.

Jevco Insurance Co. v. Malaviya, [2013] O.J. No. 394, January 29, 2013, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, E.M. Morgan J.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Application by the insurer for a declaration that it was not required to pay a portion of the judgment obtained by the plaintiff for lost wages. The insurer argued the lost wages were included in the definition of "insured claim" under section 106 of the Insurance (Vehicle) Regulation. The insurer’s application was dismissed.

Jordan v. Lowe, [2013] B.C.J. No. 170, January 18, 2013, British Columbia Supreme Court, P.M. Willcock J. (In Chambers)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A lessee with an option to purchase a vehicle is an "owner" under s. 1 of the Motor Vehicle Act. Other insurance policies contemplating an "owner" must be read in light of this definition.

Lombard General Insurance Co. of Canada v. Canadian Direct Insurance Inc., [2013] B.C.J. No. 41, January 11, 2013, British Columbia Supreme Court, P.D. Leask J.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The appeal by a disability insurer ("Standard Life") from a judgment awarding a school vice-principal ("Jackson") one year of disability benefits was allowed where the court ruled that a proper interpretation of the rider indicated that coverage for the vice-principal had not commenced at the time of disability.

Jackson v. Standard Life Assurance Co., [2012] B.C.J. No. 2599, December 12, 2012, British Columbia Court of Appeal, L.S.G. Finch C.J.B.C., N.J. Garson and A.W. MacKenzie JJ.A.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A Mid-trial ruling about when a life insurance policy came into effect.

Pagliaroli v. Industrial Alliance Insurance and Financial Services Inc., [2012] O.J. No. 5801, December 3, 2012, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, S.E. Healey J.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Application for summary judgment by the defendant insurance company primarily on a limitations issue. The application was dismissed.

Boyce v. Co-Operators General Insurance Co., [2012] O.J. No. 5288, November 13, 2012, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, M. J. Quigley J.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In a claim for coverage under the unisured automobile provisions of a policy, it was held that the term "the insured" referred to the person bringing the claim and was not limited to the named insured under the policy. The effect was to provide broader coverage for those insured under a policy who were not in a position to affect the insurance coverage arrangements that applied to them.

Jubenville v. Jubenville [2012] O.J. No. 5201, October 15, 2012, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, B.G. Thomas J.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

When employees are covered under a "professional policy" of CGL insurance for acts "only with respect to their employment", a commercially reasonable line must be drawn between what are essentially work functions and what are essentially social functions, even if some weak connection remains between the employment and the social function.

Danicek v. Alexander Holburn Beaudin & Lang [2012] B.C.J. No. 2257, November 2, 2012, British Columbia Court of Appeal, M.V. Newbury, S.D. Frankel and E.A. Bennett JJ.A.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link