Application to add insurer providing uninsured motorist coverage as defendant allowed after expiration of applicable limitation period.
Tomescu v. Sarhan, [2013] O.J. No. 1059, March 11, 2013, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, T.A. Bielby J.
Continue Reading...The defendant insurer sought dismissal of a claim for coverage under the uninsured automobile provisions of a policy. The claim had been denied on the basis the insured was in breach of the statutory conditions of the policy. The insurer brought a motion for summary dismissal and the motion was dismissed. The insurer appealed and the Court of Appeal upheld the motion decision, holding that the statutory conditions did not apply to uninsured automobile coverage. The Court of Appeal also held that the Limitation Act applied to a cross-claim brought by the Minister of Finance under the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Act, but stayed the application to have the cross-claim dismissed.
Bruinsma v. Cresswell, [2013] O.J. No. 770, February 22, 2013, Ontario Court of Appeal, J.I. Laskin, H.S. LaForme and A. Hoy JJ.A.
Continue Reading...The action for coverage under a commercial motor vehicle insurance policy was allowed where the court held that the coverage available for a higher rated vehicle could be substituted for the coverage for a lower rated vehicle provided that the coverage on the owner's other vehicles was correctly rated for their general use, even if they were operating in excess of their insured range on the day in question.
Streeper Contracting Ltd. v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, [2013] B.C.J. No. 389, British Columbia Supreme Court, L. Fenlon J.
Continue Reading...A claim against an insurance broker for the failure to advise about optional coverage. The action was dismissed.
Godina v. Tripemco Burlington Insurance Group Ltd., [2013] O.J. No. 613, February 12, 2013, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, R.B. Reid J.
Continue Reading...A motion was brought by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund to determine whether Aviva Insurance was obliged to provide uninsured motorist coverage to the plaintiff. The Court determined that the plaintiff was not entitled to uninsured motorist coverage from Aviva.
McKenzie v. Zhang, [2013] O.J. No. 638, February 11, 2013, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, E. Frank J.
Continue Reading...Application for a declaration that pursuant to the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. 1.8 and Ontario’s Standard Automobile Policy (“SAP”) the insurer had no obligation to defend its insured against a claim after paying its policy limits to the plaintiff. The application was dismissed and the insurer was ordered to continue to bear the cost of defending the insured.
Jevco Insurance Co. v. Malaviya, [2013] O.J. No. 394, January 29, 2013, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, E.M. Morgan J.
Continue Reading...Application by the insurer for a declaration that it was not required to pay a portion of the judgment obtained by the plaintiff for lost wages. The insurer argued the lost wages were included in the definition of "insured claim" under section 106 of the Insurance (Vehicle) Regulation. The insurer’s application was dismissed.
Jordan v. Lowe, [2013] B.C.J. No. 170, January 18, 2013, British Columbia Supreme Court, P.M. Willcock J. (In Chambers)
Continue Reading...Dismissal of a motion by the insurer (statutory third party) to set aside summary judgment on liability against its insureds (the defendant driver and the defendant owner) because the insurer was attempting a collateral attack on a prior order refusing to set aside default judgment against one of the insureds (the defendant owner).
Roy v. Lapointe, [2013] O.J. No. 557, February 4, 2013, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, M.P. Eberhard J.
Continue Reading...The use or operation of a vehicle does not directly cause impairment where the injury is caused by an intervening act that cannot reasonably be said to be part of the “ordinary course of things” associated with the use or operation of a vehicle. An injury does not arise directly or indirectly from the use or operation of a vehicle where the involvement of a vehicle is merely ancillary or fortuitous to the injuries inflicted.
Martin v. 2064324 Ontario Inc. (c.o.b. Freeze Night Club), [2013] O.J. No. 172, January 17, 2013, Ontario Court of Appeal, E.A. Cronk, G.J. Epstein and S.E. Pepall JJ.A.
Continue Reading...A lessee with an option to purchase a vehicle is an "owner" under s. 1 of the Motor Vehicle Act. Other insurance policies contemplating an "owner" must be read in light of this definition.
Lombard General Insurance Co. of Canada v. Canadian Direct Insurance Inc., [2013] B.C.J. No. 41, January 11, 2013, British Columbia Supreme Court, P.D. Leask J.
Continue Reading...
Mike has represented clients in personal injury cases with a emphasis on brain injuries, defended lawyers and physicians from malpractice allegations,...More...
Jonathan co-chairs Harper Grey's Engineering and Construction Law Group and has represented clients in cases involving construction, insurance and he...More...
Emily practices in the areas of insurance, construction, and health law. Her insurance practice includes general insurance defence, coverage litigati...More...
Daniel practices health law, insurance litigation and defamation law for Harper Grey. Since becoming an associate in 2009, he has assisted senior cou...More...
As the latest addition to Harper Grey's insurance group, Ryan is an associate in the practice of commercial,health and insurance company law. He join...More...Enter keywords:
