An Extra-provincial Insurer has no Right to bring a Subrogated Claim to Recover Amounts Paid

An extra provincial insurer has no express statutory right of subrogation under the Insurance (Vehicle) Act and cannot bring a subrogated claim to recover the amounts it paid to its insureds in respect of a motor vehicle accident occurring in British Columbia.

Middleton v. Heerlein, [2015] B.C.J. No. 1524, July 17, 2015, British Columbia Supreme Court, R. Johnston J.

Continue Reading...

Auto Insurance in Ontario does not Cover Drivers unless they are either Named, or have Consent from the Insured

Under the Insurance Act, RSO 1990 c.I.8, not every person who operates a listed automobile is an insured for whom indemnity is provided. To fall into that category, one must not only be driving an autombile listed on the policy, but must also be either a named insured or driving with the insured's consent. The Court found that the driver was not an insured and was not driving with the insured's consent.

Brown v. Williamson, [2015] O.J. No. 3537, July 3, 2015, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, S.E. Firestone J.

Continue Reading...

An Insurer Cannot Rely on the Concept of Insurable Interest to Deny Coverage for Statutory Insurance

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...

An Insurer should set up Information Firewall where it Insures both the Tortfeasor and Victim

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...