The insured’s application for long-term disability benefits was denied by the adjuster for five months after the time of her claim. The insured alleges that in denying her claim, the adjuster and the insurer did not act in good faith. The Court refused to summarily dismiss the insured’s claim against the insurer and adjuster for breach of contract and the duty of fairness and good faith; however, the insured’s claims against the adjuster for inducement of breach of contract and interference with contractual relations were dismissed.

Frank v. Kalokina, [2014] B.C.J. No. 2496, September 17, 2014, British Columbia Supreme Court, R.A.M. Baird J.

Continue Reading...

Where a person is not a named insured on an automobile policy and that person operates a vehicle listed on that policy, the policy holder for the vehicle is not absolutely liable under section 258 of the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.8, if that person is involved in a motor vehicle accident. Section 258 will not be engaged unless it is established that the operator of the vehicle was an insured under the policy. To be an insured under the policy, the operator of the vehicle must have been either a named insured or a person driving with the named insured’s consent at the time of the accident, and the vehicle being driven must have been owned by a named insured.

Brown v. Belair v. Wawanesa, [2014] O.J. No. 4638, October 2, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, S.E. Firestone J.

Continue Reading...

A first party insurer claimed indemnification from a second party insurer for statutory accident benefits paid to an insured following a motorcycle accident. It was held by both the arbitrator and the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on appeal that the amounts paid out to the insured were unreasonable. As a result, the quantum of statutory benefits paid to the first party insurer by the second party insurer was significantly reduced.

Jevco Insurance Co. v. Gore Mutual Insurance Co.,[2014] O.J. No. 4531, September 19, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, E.M. Stewart J.,

Continue Reading...

The insurer’s failure to provide written notice of the applicable limitation period to the insured did not cause the limitation period for commencing an action to be waived or suspended on the bases of either promissory estoppel or the Fair Practices Regulation, Alta Reg 128/2001. However, section 5.3(2) of the Fair Practices Regulation, which requires insurers to provide claimants with written notice of the applicable limitation period within 60 days of becoming aware of a claim, is now in force. Consequently, insurers will be required to provide insureds with written notice of applicable limitation periods in claims brought after July 1, 2012.

Dhillon v. Anderson, [2014] A.J. No. 1110, October 3, 2014, Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Master A.R. Robertson (in Chambers)

Continue Reading...

Where one insurer is liable to indemnify another for statutory accident benefits, the statutory scheme creates a new and actionable statutory cause of action each time a proper request for indemnification is made and goes unsatisfied.  The insurer was liable to satisfy requests made within two years of the notice to arbitrate and any requests made after.

Economical Mutual Insurance Co. v. Zurich Insurance Co., [2014] O.J. No. 4166, September 2, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, T.R. Lederer J.

Continue Reading...

The insurer was obligated to assume the defence of an additional named insured because all the plaintiff’s claims potentially arose out of or were related to the primary insured’s operations.

Sinclair v. Markham (Town), [2014] O.J. No. 4202, September 10, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, E.P. Belobaba J.

Continue Reading...

Coverage was not excluded as against two insureds as a result of an alleged intentional act on the part of another insured, because the claim in negligence against the two insureds was distinct and not derivative of the intentional tort claimed against the other insured.

D.E. v. Unifund Assurance Co., [2014] O.J. No. 4271, September 11, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, D.G. Stinson J.

Continue Reading...

The insured’s 19-year-old girlfriend was not considered an unnamed insured despite the fact that she was a member of the insured’s household. The definition of insured under the policy, which included any person under 21 “in the care of” the named insured, was never meant to capture a typical live-in romantic relationship.

 

 

Ryan v. Canadian Farm Insurance Corp.,[2014] M.J. No. 254, August 28, 2014, Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, C. Suche J.

Continue Reading...

Insured's action against insurer on a policy of critical illness insurance was dismissed on the basis that the insured's cancer showed signs of developing within 90 days of the effective date of the policy thereby triggering a 90-day exclusion clause.

MacQuarrie v. National Bank Life Insurance Co., [2014] O.J. No. 4130, February 27, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, M.A. Sanderson J.

Continue Reading...

Third party notice issued by owner of motor vehicle against renter was sufficient to require insurer of renter to respond first to claim arising out of a motor vehicle accident, notwithstanding that the plaintiff only named the owner as a defendant.

Elias v. Koochek, [2014] O.J. No. 4125, September 8, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, S.E. Firestone J.

Continue Reading...