An insurer cannot rely on the common law concept of an insurable interest to deny coverage for statutory insurance.

Young v. Saskatchewan Government Insurance, [2015] S.J. No. 207, April 30, 2015, Saskatchewan Provincial Court, D.J. Kovatch Prov. Ct. J.

Continue Reading...

Where an insurer insures both the tortfeasor for liability coverage and the victim for accident benefits, the insurer should set up a firewall so that information gathered by it regarding the accident benefits claim is not available in the tort action.

Dervisholli v. Cervenak, [2015] O.J. No. 2076, April 24, 2015, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, F.N. Marrocco A.C.J.S.C.J., J.C. Kent and M.L. Edwards JJ.

Continue Reading...

In a motor vehicle action, the limitation period for the plaintiff to make a claim for uninsured motorist coverage to his own insurer did not start to run until he was alerted that the driver and insurance information in the police report regarding the accident might be incorrect and it was reasonable for him to have relied on the information in the police report until that time.

Lingard v. Milne-McIsaac, [2015] O.J. No. 1569, March 31, 2015, Ontario Court of Appeal, P.D. Lauwers, C.W. Hourigan and G.I. Pardu JJ.A.

Continue Reading...

Motion for summary judgement brought against the insurer by a plaintiff who claimed to be an assignee of the insured’s automobile policy. The action was dismissed. The policy was not assignable in the circumstances. Alternatively, the policy had not been breached and therefore no cause of action was available to the insured or an assignee.

ResQ Auto Glass Inc. v. Co-operators General Insurance Co., [2015] O.J. No. 663, February 11, 2015, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, W. Low J.

Continue Reading...

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...