Ruling on a question of law – is a severance package received by the plaintiff deductible from the amount awarded for past and future loss of income.  The court found that the private insurance exception to the general rule against double recovery was applicable and the severance package was not deductable from any amount awarded for loss of income.

Flammia v. Hagerman, [2014] O.J. No. 6336, December 17, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, G. Mew J.

Continue Reading...

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 insured was granted relief from forfeiture for failing to meet the contractually imposed deadline for submitting a claim for long term disability benefits.

Dube v. RBC Life Insurance Co., [2015] O.J. No. 42, January 7, 2015, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, M.A. Garson 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...

The applicant homeowners’ summary judgment application brought against their title insurer for breach of contract and breach of good faith was dismissed on the basis that the loss was not covered.

MacDonald v. Chicago Title Insurance Co. of Canada, [2014] O.J. No. 6190, December 29, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, J. MacDonald J.

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...

Confirmation of coverage benefits displayed on an online portal and a confirmation statement did not amount to a certificate of coverage so as to create a contractual relationship between the insured and the insurer in an employer group disability benefits plan. The insured had no chance of success in a claim for breach of contract against the insurer when erroneously high disability coverage was corrected due to an employer error.

Sorensen v. Investors Group Financial Services Inc., [2014] N.S.J. No. 610, November 11, 2014, Nova Scotia Supreme Court, P.L. Muise J.

Continue Reading...

Coverage under a life insurance policy was found to take effect as of the date the policy was delivered to the deceased insured, and not on the date the deceased insured completed administrative forms accompanying the delivered policy. The failure to advise the insurer of an impending medical test on those administrative forms did not constitute a material misrepresentation.

Craig v. Empire Life Insurance Co., [2014] O.J. No. 5577, November 13, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, J.R. McCarthy J.

Continue Reading...

An application by the insurer for a declaration that it had no obligation to defend or indemnify the insured based on a material breach was dismissed. The insured argued successfully that it was entitled to relief from forfeiture pursuant to s.98 of the Courts of Justice Act as the breach was one of imperfect compliance rather than non-compliance.

Aviva Canada Inc v. Gravenhurst Taxi Ltd., [2014] O.J. No. 5644, November 3, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, T.M. Wood J.

Continue Reading...

An owner of a vehicle who forbids another person from driving the vehicle on the highway is still vicariously liable for that drive because the owner had consented to the driver having possession of the vehicle.

Fernandes v. Araujo, [2014] O.J. No. 5248, November 4, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, P.M. Perell J.

Continue Reading...