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...

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...

A clause excluding coverage for damage arising out of the operation of attached equipment did not apply where the equipment was in use but not being directly controlled at the time of the accident.

Dadey v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, [2014] B.C.J. No. 2118, August 15, 2014, British Columbia Supreme Court, R.W. Jenkins J.

Continue Reading...

Contrary to the trend towards tolerancy in setting aside default judgments, an insurer's motion to set aside default judgment was dismissed.

Kisel v. Intact Insurance Co., [2014] O.J. No. 3812, August 18, 2014, Ontario Supreme Court of Justice, P.M. Perrell J.

Continue Reading...

A farmer’s action for damages for bodily injuries and accident benefits arising out of an accident that occurred while he was driving an uninsured all-terrain vehicle on a public road was statute barred by virtue of the operation of Ontario’s 267.6(1) of the Insurance Act and s. 30(1)(a) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule. Although it was exclusively used as a farming vehicle, the ATV did not qualify as a self-propelled implement of husbandry and therefore did not fall within an exception to the compulsory motor vehicle insurance scheme in the province.

Matheson v. Lewis, [2014] O.J. No. 3304, July 11, 2014, Ontario Court of Appeal, R.G. Juriansz, M.H. Tulloch and G.R. Strathy JJ.A.

Continue Reading...

The existance of subrogated action in insured's name in Alberta for property damage was not a bar to insured's claim for personal injuries in Ontario.

Kelly v. Horn, [2014] O.J. No. 2872, June 16, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, F.N. Marrocco A.C.J.S.C.J., A.C.R. Whitten and Thomas JJ.

Continue Reading...

Ontario court did not have jurisdiction to hear a claim brought by a plaintiff who was involved in a motor vehicle accident in Alberta, notwithstanding that one of the defendants was her insurer who issued a policy to her in Ontario.

Tamminga v. Tamminga, [2014] O.J. No. 2915, June 18, 2014, Ontario Court of Appeal, R.G. Juriansz, M.H. Tulloch and G.R. Strathy JJ.A.

Continue Reading...