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...

The court relied on grammar and punctuation to conclude a coverage provision was not ambiguous and the plain meaning was that coverage did not apply.

1088437 Ontario Inc. (c.o.b. Northmore Fuels) v. GCAN Insurance Co., [2013] O.J. No. 5407, November 28, 2013, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, J.R. MacKinnon J.

Continue Reading...

The schedule or list of vehicles required under a fleet policy is not an "amendment" to an insurance policy. Relief from forfeiture relates to a proof of loss and is not an available remedy unless coverage has first been established.

Northbridge General Insurance Corp. v. 943240 Alberta Ltd., [2013] A.J. No. 1453, December 31, 2013, Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, J.T. McCarthy J.

Continue Reading...

The insurer’s appeal from a decision that the insurer had a duty to defend a third party claim issued against the insureds in a personal injury action was dismissed. The third party claim fell within the general coverage provision, and the wording of the household exclusion clause did not apply to exclude an indirect, third party claim from coverage.

Bawden v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co., [2013] O.J. No. 5385, November 26, 2013, Ontario Court of Appeal, D.H. Doherty, S.T. Goudge and P.D. Lauwers JJ.A.

Continue Reading...

The court gave effect to the terms of an insuring agreement for a professional liability claims-made-and-reported policy, which provided that the failure to disclose any situation or circumstance which may in the future result in a claim excluded coverage of any action subsequently emanating therefrom. As coverage for this action never existed, the insured could not seek relief against forfeiture.

Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London v. All Spec Home Inspections, [2013] O.J. No. 5246, November 19, 2013, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, J.W. Quinn J.

Continue Reading...

The issuer of a comprehensive general liability policy brought an application seeking a declaration that the issuer of an excess liability policy was required to contribute to defence costs incurred on behalf of their common insured. The Court of Appeal upheld a decision holding that there was no overlapping coverage for defence costs under the policies and, therefore, the excess insurer had no duty to contribute to the defence costs.

ACE INA Insurance v. Associated Electric & Gas Insurance Services Ltd., [2013] O.J. No. 5162, November 14, 2013, Ontario Court of Appeal, E.E. Gillese, R.G. Juriansz and G.R. Strathy JJ.A.

Continue Reading...

On an application for summary judgment it was held that the plaintiff’s 19 year old girlfriend was not a person under the age of 21 in his care and she was therefore not an unnamed insured under the policy. An exclusion for loss or damage resulting from the criminal or intentional act of any person insured by the policy therefore did not apply.

Ryan v. Canadian Farm Insurance Corp., [2013] M.J. No. 391, November 8, 2013, Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, Master J.M. Cooper.

Continue Reading...

The insured under a policy of homeowner’s insurance was found to be entitled to a defence in a tort action in which he was named as a defendant in his personal capacity and in his capacity as an officer and director of several companies also named as defendants in the tort action. It was held that the allegations against the insured were broad enough to include conduct outside the insured’s corporate duties and for which the corporate defendants may not be liable.

Martin v. Royal & Sun Alliance Co. of Canada, [2013] B.C.J. No. 2468, November 12, 2013, British Columbia Supreme Court, N.H. Smith J.

Continue Reading...

The parents of the purchaser of a policy of automobile insurance were found to fall within the definition of “dependent relative” in the policy for the duration of a vacation with their son and his family on the basis that the son financed the entire vacation in exchange for the parents agreeing to assist with childcare during the vacation.

Drover v. Smith, [2013] N.J. No. 367, November 12, 2013, Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court, R.J. Halley J.

Continue Reading...

The parents of the purchaser of a policy of automobile insurance were found to fall within the definition of “dependent relative” in the policy for the duration of a vacation with their son and his family on the basis that the son financed the entire vacation in exchange for the parents agreeing to assist with childcare during the vacation.

Drover v. Smith, [2013] N.J. No. 367, November 12, 2013, Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court, R.J. Halley J.

Continue Reading...