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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

The court of appeal upheld the trial decision that the insured had specifically sought to obtain prior act coverage under a directors and officers liability policy in relation to certain known potential claims and that the insurer had waived certain “carve out” provisions in the policy relating to known facts or circumstances that might give rise to a claim and could not therefore deny coverage to the insured in relation to those claims.

Coventree Inc. v. Lloyds Syndicate 1221 (Millennium Syndicate), [2012] O.J. No. 2287, May 24, 2012, Ontario Court of Appeal, D.R. O'Connor A.C.J.O., R.P. Armstrong and D. Watt JJ.A.

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

Lombard General Insurance Co. of Canada v. 328354 B.C. Ltd., [2012] B.C.J. No. 590, March 26, 2012, British Columbia Supreme Court, G.B. Butler J.

Insurer's application for declaration that its obligation to contribute to the costs of defending its insureds was limited to pro rata share based on time "on risk" was dismissed.

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

The Court of Appeal determined that the limitation period for a "loss transfer claim" made by one insurer against another for indemnification for statutory accident benefits ("SABs") paid to an insured begins to run on the day after the insurer seeking indemnification makes a demand for loss transfer.

Markel Insurance Co. of Canada v. ING Insurance Co. of Canada et al., [2012] O.J. No. 1505, April 5, 2012, Ontario Court of Appeal, S.T. Goudge, R.J. Sharpe and R.A. Blair JJ.A.

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

Application by insured for indemification under its CGL policy for damages paid in respect of a tort claim. The insurer denied indemnification on the basis that the auto exclusion applied as the injuries compensated were caused by the use and operation of a motor vehicle. The alleged negligent act relied on by the numbered company was the improper securing of a trailer to a vehicle. The court held that there was no other purpose for securing the trailer other than to tow it. The court was satisfied that both the securing and the towing are ordinary and well known activities to which automobiles are put. The court therefore found that there was no concurrent liability in this case and that the exclusion was properly employed.

430937 Ontario Ltd. v. Zurich Insurance Co., [2012] O.J. No. 2431, May 30, 2012, Ontarior Superior Court of Justice, A.J. Goodman J.

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

Lefebvre-Jackson v. Salt, [2012] O.J. No. 1234, March 15, 2012, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, D.R. McDermot J.

OPCF 44-R carrier was not liable to plaintiff for any damages within the policy limits of the insured defendant's policy.

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

The insurer applied for a declaration the respondent insurer was obliged to contribute to defence costs. At issue was the applicability of the exclusion clause stating the policy did not apply to liability for injury to “that particular part of any property”, the restoration, repair or replacement of which was caused by the insured’s faulty workmanship. The pleadings alleged the insured failed to install balancing valves and time clocks in a hot water system. The petition was allowed. The phrase “that particular part” had to be given some meaning and the only way to do so was to consider the hot water system as comprising component parts with the valves and timers beings some of those parts.

Lombard General Insurance Co. of Canada v. Canadian Surety Co., [2012] B.C.J. No. 711, April 12, 2012, British Columbia Supreme Court, E.M. Myers J.

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