The defendants brought a summary judgment application to have the plaintiff’s action dismissed as barred by the Limitations Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 24, on the basis the plaintiff’s action was commenced two years and 21 days after the motor vehicle accident at issue.  The court dismissed the defendants’ limitation defence on the basis the plaintiff did not subjectively nor objectively know that her injuries were permanent in the 21 day period after the accident.

Zhu v. Matadar, [2015] O.J. No. 78, January 8, 2015, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, P.M. Perell 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...

A decision that an insurer’s denial of benefits provided incomplete reasons for the denial as it did not enclose the report of a medical examiner relied on for the denial and that the limitation period did not start to run was held to be reasonable on judicial review.

Allstate Insurance Co. of Canada v. Klimitz, [2014] O.J. No. 5943, December 12, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, F.N. Marrocco, J.M. Spence and C.J. Horkins JJ.

Continue Reading...

Contractual limitation period for making a claim against an excess motor vehicle insurer began to run from the time the insured had accumulated a body of evidence which would give him a reasonable chance of demonstrating that his claim exceeded the limits. Further, it was equitable in the circumstances that the insured was granted a four year extension for filing the claim.

Oliver v. Elite Insurance Co., [2014] N.S.J. No. 617, November 21, 2014, Nova Scotia Supreme Court, P.P. Rosinski J.

Continue Reading...

 

An insured's application for benefits under a policy issued to his employer, submitted two and a half years after the deadline, was considered timely because the insured had not been provided with the policy or claims documents by his employer.

Nguyen v. SSQ Life Insurance Co., [2014] O.J. No. 5253, November 4, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, P.M. Perell J.

Continue Reading...

Where a person is not a named insured on an automobile policy and that person operates a vehicle listed on that policy, the policy holder for the vehicle is not absolutely liable under section 258 of the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.8, if that person is involved in a motor vehicle accident. Section 258 will not be engaged unless it is established that the operator of the vehicle was an insured under the policy. To be an insured under the policy, the operator of the vehicle must have been either a named insured or a person driving with the named insured’s consent at the time of the accident, and the vehicle being driven must have been owned by a named insured.

Brown v. Belair v. Wawanesa, [2014] O.J. No. 4638, October 2, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, S.E. Firestone J.

Continue Reading...

The insurer’s failure to provide written notice of the applicable limitation period to the insured did not cause the limitation period for commencing an action to be waived or suspended on the bases of either promissory estoppel or the Fair Practices Regulation, Alta Reg 128/2001. However, section 5.3(2) of the Fair Practices Regulation, which requires insurers to provide claimants with written notice of the applicable limitation period within 60 days of becoming aware of a claim, is now in force. Consequently, insurers will be required to provide insureds with written notice of applicable limitation periods in claims brought after July 1, 2012.

Dhillon v. Anderson, [2014] A.J. No. 1110, October 3, 2014, Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Master A.R. Robertson (in Chambers)

Continue Reading...

Where one insurer is liable to indemnify another for statutory accident benefits, the statutory scheme creates a new and actionable statutory cause of action each time a proper request for indemnification is made and goes unsatisfied.  The insurer was liable to satisfy requests made within two years of the notice to arbitrate and any requests made after.

Economical Mutual Insurance Co. v. Zurich Insurance Co., [2014] O.J. No. 4166, September 2, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, T.R. Lederer 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...

Where an insurer refuses to make payment under a policy, the limitation period runs from the date the claimant first knew, or in the circumstances ought to have known, that the insurer refused to make payment under a contract of insurance, rather than from the date of the loss. The insured’s claim is not against the person responsible for the original loss, but against the insurer who is alleged to have breached the contract of insurance by wrongfully denying payment.

Aspen Village Properties Ltd. v. Saskatchewan Government Insurance [2014] S.J. No. 340, June 18, 2014, Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, D.P. Ball J.

Continue Reading...