Allstate Insurance Co. of Canada v. Aftab, [2015] O.J. No. 2516, May 15, 2015, Ontario Court of Appeal, G.R. Strathy C.J.O., H.S. LaForme and M.H. Tulloch JJ.A.

Continue Reading...

Judicial review of an umpire's decision made pursuant to section 12 of the Insurance Act, R.S.B.C. 2012, c.1, regarding the value of stolen jewellery The standard of review was whether the umpire's decision was patently unreasonable. The petitioners (insureds) failed to identify a reversible error and the petition for judicial review was dismissed.

Vandale v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co., [2015] B.C.J. No. 942, May 11, 2015, British Columbia Supreme Court, P. Rogers J.

Continue Reading...

The Court found on a special case under Rule 9-3 that the insurer did not have a duty to defend the insureds with respect to claims for negligent acts occurring within the policy period when the resulting damage (i.e., a landslide) occurred several months after the policy expired.

Canadian Northern Shield Insurance Co. v. Intact Insurance Co., [2015] B.C.J. No. 943, May 11, 2015, British Columbia Supreme Court, B. Fisher J.

Continue Reading...

Motion by the insured for a declaration of coverage. The insured owned half of a duplex with a dirt floor. The question was whether the policy covered the cost of remediating the dirt floor after it had been contaminated with oil. The court held that remediation was covered under the policy as the definition of “dwelling” included the floor, albeit one made of dirt.

Snow. v. Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Co. of Canada, [2015] N.S.J. No. 53, January 13, 2015, Nova Scotia Supreme Court, P.J. Murray J.

Continue Reading...

The applicant homeowners’ summary judgment application brought against their title insurer for breach of contract and breach of good faith was dismissed on the basis that the loss was not covered.

MacDonald v. Chicago Title Insurance Co. of Canada, [2014] O.J. No. 6190, December 29, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, J. MacDonald J.

Continue Reading...

Application by the insurer for a dismissal of the plaintiffs' action on the basis the disputes were resolved by a binding settlement agreements. The court found the settlement agreements were binding and dismissed the plaintiffs' action. There was no evidence that the plaintiffs were subject to undue influence or that they were not mentally competent when they signed the settlement agreements. Further, the settlement agreements were not unconscionable.

Palaniuk v. Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Co. of Canada, [2014] B.C.J. No. 2539, October 10, 2014, British Columbia Supreme Court, P. Rogers J.

Continue Reading...

Coverage was not excluded as against two insureds as a result of an alleged intentional act on the part of another insured, because the claim in negligence against the two insureds was distinct and not derivative of the intentional tort claimed against the other insured.

D.E. v. Unifund Assurance Co., [2014] O.J. No. 4271, September 11, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, D.G. Stinson J.

Continue Reading...

The insured’s 19-year-old girlfriend was not considered an unnamed insured despite the fact that she was a member of the insured’s household. The definition of insured under the policy, which included any person under 21 “in the care of” the named insured, was never meant to capture a typical live-in romantic relationship.

 

 

Ryan v. Canadian Farm Insurance Corp.,[2014] M.J. No. 254, August 28, 2014, Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, C. Suche J.

Continue Reading...

The insured’s property damage claim under a homeowner’s policy for damage to her house alleged to have been caused by a contractor fell within the “faulty workmanship” exclusion of the insured’s insurance policy, which also excluded resulting damage from faulty workmanship.

Monk v. Farmers' Mutual Insurance Co. (Lindsay), [2014] O.J. 3509, June 27, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, E.J. Koke J.

Continue Reading...

This was a motion by the insureds to determine whether their home was insured by the insurer when it was destroyed by fire. Prior to the fire, the insurer wrote to the insureds to advise them that the policy would not be renewed (the renewal date was 8 days before the fire). The insureds argued the insurer was not entitled to terminate the policy as it did. The Court found the termination was valid. A plain reading of the termination clause of the insurance policy indicated that neither the insurer nor the insured must give any reason for termination of the policy.

Merei v. State Farm Fire Casualty Co., [2014] O.J. No. 2434, May 15, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, T.J. Carey J.

Continue Reading...