The plaintiff commenced an action against the defendant's insurer on the basis the plainitff's damaged goods were insured by the defendant's insurer as if they were the property of the defendant. The Court concluded the goods were not insured. The defendant had not agreed to arrange insurance for the goods and the plaintiff was not an unnamed beneficiary under the policy.

Merex Inc. v. Stoney Island Fisheries Ltd., [2014] N.S.J. No. 79, February 21, 2014, Nova Scotia Supreme Court, J.D. Murphy J.

Continue Reading...

Application on the issue of whether the insurer had a duty to defend the insured in legal proceedings alleging damages caused by defective work. The insured’s plumbing work was completed while the insurance policy was valid. Years later, the plumbing system failed and caused damage. The insurer argued the pleadings did not allege facts showing that an occurrence causing damage took place before the expiry of the policy and in the alternative, the damage was excluded from coverage as a result of the "your work" exclusion. The insurer's application was dismissed because there was an occurrence during the policy period and the insurer could not demonstrate that the exclusion clause clearly applied.

Co-operators General Insurance Co. v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co., [2014] N.S.J. No. 111, January 27, 2014, Nova Scotia Supreme Court, M.J. Wood J.

Continue Reading...

The insurer had separate policies of insurance with the plaintiff and the defendant. The plaintiffs argued that because they were also policy holders with the insurer, the insurer owed them a duty of good faith and fair dealing and the insurer was obliged to settle the plaintiffs' action against the defendants. The plaintiffs' action against the insurer was dismissed because the insurer owed no duty to the plaintiffs simply because the plaintiffs had an insurance policy with the insurer.

Sweet v. Sweet, [2014] S.J. No. 84, January 27, 2014, Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, R.C. Mills J.

Continue Reading...

The insured was in a motor vehicle accident at a time when her driver’s license was expired. The insured was entitled to be relieved from forfeiture for non-compliance with the statutory condition and the insurer had a duty to defend the motor vehicle accident action and indemnify the insured for liability.

Kozel v. Personal Insurance Co., [2014] O.J. No. 753, February 19, 2014, Ontario Court of Appeal, M. Rosenberg, J.C. MacPherson and H.S. LaForme JJ.A.

Continue Reading...

Although the insured’s claim for indemnification under a commercial general liability insurance policy for the cost of destroying a contaminated product sold by the insured to the third party was for a fortuitous loss, it did not fall within coverage as the insured did not prove the event that caused the contamination.

Westaqua Commodity Group Ltd. v. Sovereign General Insurance Co., [2014] B.C.J. No. 284, February 18, 2014, British Columbia Supreme Court, J. Steeves J.

Continue Reading...

 

Application by insurer for declaration that homeowner's policy which excluded the cost of making good faulty material or workmanship did not apply to loss in circumstances where statement of claim alleged faulty workmanship was denied on basis that the cause of loss might not be limited to faulty workmanship.

Hallett v. Fitzpatrick, [2013] N.J. No. 438, December 19, 2013, Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court, C. Thompson 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...

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...