British Columbia Insurance Blog : Canada Insurance Lawyer & Attorney : Michael Thomas of Harper Grey Law Firm : British Columbia, Vancouver

The appeal by an insurance broker ("Meadow-North") from a decision finding it negligent for failing to advise an insured ("Cheecham") with respect to gaps in coverage for a rental property was dismissed where the court upheld the trial judge's decision that the broker should have drawn attention to the vacant vandalism exception as part of its duty to provide counsel and advice.

Meadow-North Agencies Ltd. v. Cheecham, [2012] S.J. No. 762, December 12, 2012, Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, S.J. Cameron, G.R. Jackson and R.G. Richards JJ.A.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Application, prior to trial, by the insureds for a declaration that the insurers had a duty to indemnify them for all damages (other than punitive damages). Application dismissed. Where the material facts are in dispute, the insurer's duty to indemnify should not be determined prior to trial.

Oxford (County) v. Guarantee Co. of North America, [2012] O.J. No. 4887, July 13, 2012, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, V. Mitrow J.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The defendant insureds sought and were granted a declaration that their professional liability insurer was required to provide a defence in an action on the basis the insurer was not able to conclusively show that coverage would be excluded on the basis of the insureds' knowledge of a potential claim at the time they applied for the insurance.

Sydie v. Murad, [2011] O.J. No. 5381, November 28, 2011, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, P. Lauwers J.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 The petition by a number of members of a strata council (the "Insureds") for a declaration that Great American Insurance Co. (the "Insurer") was required to provide them with a defence to an action commenced by an owner of a unit in the strata ("Oldaker") was dismissed where the court found that all of the claims against the Insured were excluded as they had previously been made in proceedings initiated by Oldaker prior to the policy period.

Coleman v. Great American Insurance Co., [2010] B.C.J. No. 2514, December 14, 2010, British Columbia Supreme Court, P.M. Willcock J.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The appeal of a decision finding that an Insurer was not obligated to defend or indemnify the Insured for claims arising from the Insured's own negligence was dismissed. A contractor was required under the contract to purchase the insurance protection for the Insured in relation to the work done under the contract, but coverage under the policy was limited to vicarious liability for the acts of the contractor.

Ontario (Minister of Transportation) v. Canadian Surety Co., [2009] O.J. No. 5487, December 22, 2009, Ontario Court of Appeal, E.A. Cronk, R.A. Blair and H.S. LaForme JJ.A.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The motion by the Lawyers Professional Indemnity Company ("LawPro") for an order striking the fourth party claim of a law clerk ("Rosso") was allowed where the Court held that Rosso had no cause of action against LawPro as he had no contractual relationship with Lawpro and LawPro did not owe him a duty of care.

1013952 Ontario Inc. (c.o.b. Silverado Restaurant and Nightclub) v. Sakinofsky, [2009] O.J. No. 4158, October 8, 2009, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, H.M. Pierce J.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Failure to disclose a potential claim constitutes a material non-disclosure in an application for insurance in an errors and ommission insurance policy.

Here is the case citation: Agresso Corp. v. Temple Insurance Co.[2007] B.C.J. No. 2466.  British Columbia Court of Appeal.  L.S.G. Finch C.J.B.C., C.A. Ryan and I.T. Donald JJ.A.  November 21, 2007.

Here is a link to the decision.

This case was originally summarized by Shanti Davies and edited by David Pilley.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

An Insured under a claims-made policy ("Brelih") was unsuccessful in obtaining a declaration that his errors and omissions Insurer owed a duty to defend where the Court held that proper notice of the potential claim was not provided within the policy period.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

An insured ("MWH")under a professional liability policy was successful in obtaining a declaration that its insurer ("Lumbermens") owed a duty to defend MWH where the Court found that MWH had reported a "circumstance" which might result in a claim within the policy period.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link