The defendants brought a summary judgment application to have the plaintiff’s action dismissed as barred by the Limitations Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 24, on the basis the plaintiff’s action was commenced two years and 21 days after the motor vehicle accident at issue.  The court dismissed the defendants’ limitation defence on the basis the plaintiff did not subjectively nor objectively know that her injuries were permanent in the 21 day period after the accident.

Zhu v. Matadar, [2015] O.J. No. 78, January 8, 2015, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, P.M. Perell J.

Continue Reading...

A decision that an insurer’s denial of benefits provided incomplete reasons for the denial as it did not enclose the report of a medical examiner relied on for the denial and that the limitation period did not start to run was held to be reasonable on judicial review.

Allstate Insurance Co. of Canada v. Klimitz, [2014] O.J. No. 5943, December 12, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, F.N. Marrocco, J.M. Spence and C.J. Horkins JJ.

Continue Reading...

Contractual limitation period for making a claim against an excess motor vehicle insurer began to run from the time the insured had accumulated a body of evidence which would give him a reasonable chance of demonstrating that his claim exceeded the limits. Further, it was equitable in the circumstances that the insured was granted a four year extension for filing the claim.

Oliver v. Elite Insurance Co., [2014] N.S.J. No. 617, November 21, 2014, Nova Scotia Supreme Court, P.P. Rosinski J.

Continue Reading...

An application by the insurer for a declaration that it had no obligation to defend or indemnify the insured based on a material breach was dismissed. The insured argued successfully that it was entitled to relief from forfeiture pursuant to s.98 of the Courts of Justice Act as the breach was one of imperfect compliance rather than non-compliance.

Aviva Canada Inc v. Gravenhurst Taxi Ltd., [2014] O.J. No. 5644, November 3, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, T.M. Wood J.

Continue Reading...

An owner of a vehicle who forbids another person from driving the vehicle on the highway is still vicariously liable for that drive because the owner had consented to the driver having possession of the vehicle.

Fernandes v. Araujo, [2014] O.J. No. 5248, November 4, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, P.M. Perell 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...

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...