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 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...

Appeal of a finding that the lessee of a vehicle was the "owner" of the vehicle by virtue of the definition of "owner" under the Motor Vehicle Act such that the defendant driver was not an additional insured. Appeal dismissed. Although it was doubtful the lessee was an "owner" under the policy wording, the vehicle was licensed in the lessee's name and the defendant driver was not an additional insured.

Lombard General Insurance Co. of Canada v. Canadian Direct Insurance Inc. [2013] B.C.J. No. 2673, December 5, 2013, British Columbia Court of Appeal, P.D. Lowry, D.M. Smith and E.A. Bennett JJ.A.

Continue Reading...

The Court of Appeal considered whether the addition of the words "compensation similar to benefits" to section 106 of the Insurance (Vehicle) Regulation changed the meaning of section 106 such that compensation in the form of sick bank accumulation should be deducted from damages awarded for past income loss. The Court found that the words "compensation similar to benefits" did not remove the element of insurance from a plain reading of the section. The accumulation of sick leave credits does not involve an element of insurance. Accordingly, sick banked time is not deductible.

Jordan v. Lowe [2013] B.C.J. NO. 2647, December 3, 2013, British Columbia Court of Appeal, R.T.A. Low, C.E. Hinkson and D.C. Harris JJ.A.

Continue Reading...

No-fault statutory benefit insurer had no right to bring crossclaim against disability insurer for reimbursement of benefits paid by no-fault insurer when disability insurer had denied liability to the insured.

Ng. v. Cole, [2013] O.J. No. 4867, October 24, 2013, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, J.C. Murray J.

Continue Reading...

Court sets aside noting in default on the basis that delivering a statement of claim to an insurer demonstrates an intention to defend.

Economical Mutual Insurance Co. v. Montgomery, [2013] O.J. No. 4753, October 22, 2013, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Master R. Dash

Continue Reading...

The insured commenced an action to recover caregiver benefits, non-earner benefits, and additional damages under her motor vehicle liability policy which provided for statutory accident benefits over three years after the insurer refused to pay benefits. The limitation period was not extended by a mediation after the date of the insurer's refusal to pay, or a subsequent application for benefits. As a result, the insured's action was statute barred.

Blake v. Dominion of Canada General Insurance Co., [2013] O.J. No. 4413, September 30, 2013, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, A.C.R. Whitten J.

Continue Reading...

Insurer obligated to pay for insured's full-time care under Ontario Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule---Effective September 1, 2010, and not just for care provided during the 40 hours per week when the insured's mother would have been working but for the accident.

Henry v. Gore Mutual Insurance Co., [2013] O.J. No. 3792, July 16, 2013, Ontario Court of Appeal, J.M. Simmons, A. Hoy and G.R. Strathy JJ.A.

Continue Reading...

An application for summary judgment by an insurer seeking dismissal of two related motor vehicle actions was dismissed on the basis the insurer had not met the onus of showing there was no genuine issue for trial.

Sobolewski v. Aviva Canada Inc., [2013] O.J. No. 3155, July 5, 2013, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, R.A. Lococo J.

Continue Reading...

The appeal from the denial of a motion to add the plaintiff's insurer as an additional defendant in a motor vehicle action was denied on the basis that there was no possible factual scenario in which the insurer could be liable to provide indemnity pursuant to the family protection endorsement included in the policy.

Vogler v. Lemieux, [2013] O.J. No. 3213, July 8, 2013, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, I.F. Leach J.

Continue Reading...