An insurer was time barred from bringing a loss transfer claim against a second insurer by operation of the doctrine of laches.

Zurich Insurance Co. v. TD General Insurance Co., [2014] O.J. No. 2550, May 27, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, S.N. Lederman J.

Continue Reading...

A broker can crossclaim against an insurer where a declaration on the issue of coverage could provide the broker with a complete defence.

JBI v. ACE Ina Insurance, [2014] O.J. No. 2615, May 30, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Master J. Haberman

Continue Reading...

This was a motion by the insureds to determine whether their home was insured by the insurer when it was destroyed by fire. Prior to the fire, the insurer wrote to the insureds to advise them that the policy would not be renewed (the renewal date was 8 days before the fire). The insureds argued the insurer was not entitled to terminate the policy as it did. The Court found the termination was valid. A plain reading of the termination clause of the insurance policy indicated that neither the insurer nor the insured must give any reason for termination of the policy.

Merei v. State Farm Fire Casualty Co., [2014] O.J. No. 2434, May 15, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, T.J. Carey J.

Continue Reading...

A dispute arose over the application of an indemnity clause in a contract between a golf tournament host and golf course owner. The plaintiff was injured in a golf cart accident. When the indemnity clause was read as a whole, it obliged the golf tournament host to indemnify the golf course owner for the golf course owner's own negligence.

Neely v. MacDonald, [2014] O.J. No. 2285, May 12, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, F.L. Myers J.

Continue Reading...

A release signed by a plaintiff participating in a zip line activity did not defeat the plaintiff's claim for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle collision on the defendant zip line operator's bus travelling from the zipline area. The release was contrary to public policy, which did not allow an owner/operator of a motor vehicle to contract out of liability for damages for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident.

Niedermeyer v. Charlton [2014] B.C.J. No. 763, April 30, 2014, British Columbia Court of Appeal, E.A. Bennett, N.J. Garson, and C.E. Hinkson JJ.A.

Continue Reading...

Insured found to have made material misrepresentations during his application for a life and disability policy.

Linden Estate v. CUMIS Life Insurance Co., [2014] N.S.J. No. 153, April 4, 2014, Nova Scotia Supreme Court, D. Boudreau J.

Continue Reading...

Insurer's notice of termination of benefits under Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule was not properly given because procedure requirements not followed.

Roger v. Personal Insurance Co. of Canada, [2014] O.J. No. 1575, April 1, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, C.D. Aitken J.

Continue Reading...

Pollution exclusion in homeowner's policy may not apply to circumstances where sound insulation releases noxious gas that renders the home uninhabitable.

Robinson v. Primmum Insurance Co., [2014] O.J. No. 487, January 31, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, A.D. Grace J.

Continue Reading...

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...