It is appropriate for insurer to seek contribution from other insurers by filing an originating application pursuant to Rule 3.2(1) of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench Rules.

Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Corp. v. Intact Insurance Co., [2014] A.J. No. 611, June 10, 2014, Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, W.P. Sullivan J.

Continue Reading...

The court reviewed and clarified the definition of a "dependent" under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

Security National Insurance Co. v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co., [2013] O.J. No. 5661, December 9, 2013, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, E.M. Morgan J.

Continue Reading...

An insurer brought an action in Ontario seeking a declaration regarding the coverage available to the defendant under several alleged policies of insurance relating to mines located in Manitoba. A motion by the defendant seeking to have the action transferred to Manitoba was dismissed on the basis that other related litigation had been commenced in Ontario and there were numerous disadvantages to having the actions heard in different jurisdictions.

Century Indemnity Co. v. Viridian Inc., [2013] O.J. No. 3265, June 26, 2013, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, H.M. Pierce J.

Continue Reading...

An insurer was found liable for one half of judgment on the basis of equitable contribution and restitution.

Aviva Insurance Co. of Canada v. Lombard General Insurance Co. of Canada [2013] O.J. No. 2851, June 20, 2013, Ontario Court of Appeal, R.A. Blair, M.H. Tulloch and p.D. Lauwers JJ.A.

Continue Reading...

The court of appeal rejected the application of the American Stonewall Principle and refused to pro-rate deductibles even where deductibles were larger than the pro-rated payout for 'long-tail' claims.

Goodyear Canada Inc. v. American International Companies [2013] O.J. No. 2746, June 13, 2013, Ontario Court of Appeal, J.I. Laskin, E.A. Cronk and A. Hoy JJ.A

Continue Reading...

In reasons focusing on the need for deterrence, punitive damages awards of $1,500,000 and $3,000,000 were made against two insurers respectively. The court also awarded aggravated damages of $150,000 and $300,000 against each insurer respectively for breaching the peace of mind contracts.

Branco v. American Home Assurance Co., [2013] S.J. No. 151, March 21, 2013, Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, M.D. Acton J.

Continue Reading...

The insurer of an incorporated truck driver may be the priority insurer under the SABs

An individual who is a sole proprietor may make an insured vehicle available to himself for his regular use. Where this is shown, the individual will be deemed to be a named insured under the policy insuring the vehicle for the purposes of s. 66(1) of the SABS and the insurerer of the vehicle will be the priority insurer for statutory accident benefits.





Security National Insurance Co. v. Markel Insurance Co., and Kingsway General Insurance Co. v. Gore Mutual Insurance Co., [2012] O.J. No. 4749, October 11, 2012, Ontario Court of Appeal, J.M. Simmons, R.P. Armstrong and S.E. Pepall JJ.A.

Continue Reading...

An insured cannot retroactively apply for coverage to recover damages

Plaintiff's insurer was required to provide coverage due to a material misrepresentations made by driver of the other vehicle involved in an accident.

Wen v. Unifund Assurance Co. [2012] O.J. No. 4386, September 20, 2012, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, S.M. Stevenson J.

Continue Reading...

A duty to defend is owed where a lawsuit raises a possiblity of coverage under the policy

An appeal by an insurer from an order that it defend its insureds and reimburse them for defence costs. The appeal was dismissed.

Meridian Construction Inc. v. Royal & SunAlliance Insurance Co. of Canada, [2012] N.S.J. No. 450, August 23, 2012, Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, M.J. Hamilton, J.E. Fichaud and P. Bryson JJ.A.

Continue Reading...

Defendants presented as one party in an action may not be able to challenge an apportionment of responsibility

Two separate insurers insured two defendants in a tort action. The defendants' were presented as one party in the tort action, and were represented by one counsel. No crossclaims were made. Following judgement, one insurer sought a declaration that the two defendants should bear equal responsibility for the tort judgments. The court held that by melding the positions of the two defendans, the insurers represented to the court that their liability was indivisible. By taking a passive role, the second insurer participated in and became a party to that representation. As such, it was no longer feasible to allocate liability between the two of them in a conventional manner and the only reasonable solution was to apportion responsibility for the negligence of the defendants equally.

Aviva Insurance Co. of Canada v. Lombard General Insurance Co. of Canada, [2012] O.J. No. 2454, June 1, 2012, Ontarior Superior Court of Justice, A.D. Grace J.

Continue Reading...