Location of automobile insurance policy is not a factor that satisfies the real and substantial jurisdictional connection test

The plaintiff appealed a jurisdictional ruling which found no real and substantial connection between the parties, the accident in which the plaintiff was injured and Ontario. A five‑judge panel of the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and affirmed Tamminga v. Tamminga, 2014 ONCA 478, which stands for the principle that a plaintiff's Ontario automobile insurance policy is not a factor that satisfies the real and substantial connection test.

Forsythe v. Westfall, [2015] O.J. No. 6134, December 29, 2015, Ontario Court of Appeal, E.E. Gillese, R.A. Blair, J.L. MacFarland, S.E. Pepall and M.L. Benotto JJ.A.

Continue Reading...

A pedestrian who was injured in a hit and run accident was not entitled to coverage under the unidentified automobile provisions of her own automobile policy because she was not an “occupant” of a vehicle at the time she was injured.

Ostrowercha v. Co-Operators General Insurance Co., 2015 ABQB 636, October 15, 2015, Alberta Court of Queens Bench, S.M. Sanderman J.

Continue Reading...

The deceased and her former common law spouse had given up all claims to each other's property under a separation agreement. Therefore, the spouse was not entitled to receive the proceeds of a life insurance policy on the deceased's life, though he had not been removed as the beneficiary.

Shiller-Arsenault v. Proudman, 2015 BCSC 1924, October 21, 2015, British Columbia Supreme Court, W.G. Baker J.

Continue Reading...

An additional insured under a commercial general liability policy was entitled to a defence in a claim in which the allegations of negligence against it and the named insured were the same.

Dufferin Construction Co., a Division of Holcim (Canada) Inc. v. Dominion of Canada General Insurance, 2015 ONSC 6311, October 13, 2015, Ontario Supreme Court of Justice, C.J. Brown J.

Continue Reading...

An insurer who agrees to provide coverage for malicious prosecution has effectively contracted out of the fortuity principle and it should not be applied so as to preclude coverage the insurer agreed to provide.

Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v. The Sovereign General Insurance Company, 2015 ONCA 702, October 22, 2015, Court of Appeal for Ontario, G.J. Epstein, S.E. Pepall and M.L. Benotto JJ.A.

Continue Reading...

A snow plow was held to be a “heavy commercial vehicle” for the purposes of the Ontario loss transfer provisions. Use of the phrase “and includes” in the applicable regulation expanded the types of automobiles captured under section.

Dominion of Canada General Insurance Co. v. Aviva Canada Inc., [2015] O.J. No. 5153, October 6, 2015, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, C.J. Brown J.

Continue Reading...

Indemnity was extended to the badly injured driver of a motor vehicle after an intoxicated passenger intentionally grabbed the steering wheel, causing the vehicle to crash because the word “use” in the legislation included use by a passenger while the vehicle was being used as a motor vehicle.

Felix v. Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, 2015 B.C.J. No. 2024, September 23, 2015, Court of Appeal for British Columbia, E.A. Bennett, M.E. Saunders and S.S. Stromberg-Stein JJ.A.

Continue Reading...

The plaintiff insured was involved in an accident while riding a newly-acquired motorcycle. He sued his insurers for failing to provide coverage for his injuries, and his insurance brokers for advising him that the motorcycle was covered under his insurance policy. The insurers, but not the brokers, brought a motion under Rule 20 for summary judgment. The Judge found that he could not make the necessary findings of fact to fairly adjudicate the issues, particularly in light of the fact that the insurance brokers had not provided evidence on the application. The motion was dismissed.

Jeliazov v. John Doe, [2015] O.J. No. 4988, September 28, 2015, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Firestone J.

Continue Reading...

The insured was not in breach of his insurance policy when he crashed his vehicle into a restaurant after consuming a bowl of Kava (a traditional Fijian drink). There was insufficient evidence to prove that a single bowl of Kava would cause the symptoms experienced by the insured. The insured did not provide a false statement by saying he had not consumed drugs in the 12 hours prior to the accident.

Venkataya v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, [2015] B.C.J. No. 1896, September 3, 2015, British Columbia Supreme Court, P.G. Voith J.

Continue Reading...

An insurer was obligated to pay for the increased cost of repairs due to the additional work required under the Building Code.  The relevant exclusion clause did not apply because it only excluded repairs relating to "by-laws" and the Building Code was not considered a "by-law".

Choukair v. Allstate Insurance Co. of Canada, [2015] O.J. No. 4361, August 20, 2015, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, M.J. Quigley J.

Continue Reading...