Marketability of a property is affected by municipal work orders even if they are not registered against title of the property

Municipal work orders do not need to be registered against title to affect the marketability of the property.

MacDonald v. Chicago Title Insurance Co. of Canada, [2015] O.J. No. 6350, December 3, 2015, Ontario Court of Appeal, E.A. Cronk, C.W. Hourigan, M.L. Benotto JJ.A. Continue Reading...

Allegation of negligence for failing to hire a competent contractor to remove trees from recreational property fell within coverage for

The insureds applied for a declaration that their insurer had a duty to defend them in an action where the plaintiff was injured by a tree that was being removed on an uninsured property owned by the insureds. The court found the insurer had a duty to defend the insureds because the true nature of the allegation that the insureds were negligent for failing to hire a competent contractor was a claim arising out of the actions of an individual and was covered under the insured's homeowner's policy which provided coverage for "personal actions anywhere in the world."

Hill v. Intact Insurance Co., [2015] O.J. No. 5898, November 10, 2015, Ontario Superior Court of Justice Ottawa, Ontario, P.E. Roger J.

Continue Reading...

The dismissal of an insurer's subrogated claim against an unnamed insured was upheld on appeal.

Rochon v. Rochon, 2015 ONCA 746, November 6, 2015, Court of Appeal for Ontario, J.M. Simmons, G.J. Epstein and G.I. Pardu JJ.A.

Continue Reading...

The insured’s claims against the strata corporation and the strata insurer were dismissed after a fire caused by a tenant’s clandestine drug laboratory only caused damage to the insured’s strata unit. The quantum of damage was less than the strata corporation’s $50,000 deductible, which was not an unreasonable deductible value.

Louie v. Strata Plan VR-1323, [2015] B.C.J. No. 2186, October 8, 2015, British Columbia Supreme Court, B.M. Greyell J.

Continue Reading...

An insurer was obligated to pay for the increased cost of repairs due to the additional work required under the Building Code.  The relevant exclusion clause did not apply because it only excluded repairs relating to "by-laws" and the Building Code was not considered a "by-law".

Choukair v. Allstate Insurance Co. of Canada, [2015] O.J. No. 4361, August 20, 2015, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, M.J. Quigley J.

Continue Reading...

Bullying was found to be an Intentional Act and Liability Coverage was Excluded (Action 2)

An exclusion clause excluding liability coverage for claims arising from bodily injury caused by an intentional act applied to exclude coverage for claims for alleged bullying.

C.S. V. TD Home and Auto Insurance Co., [2015] O.J. No. 3063, June 11, 2015, Ontario Court of Appeal, J.C. MacPherson, E.A. Cronk and E.E. Gillese JJ.A

Continue Reading...

Bullying was found to be an Intentional Act and Liability Coverage was Excluded (Action 1)

An exclusion clause which excludes liabilty coverage for claims arising from failure to take steps to prevent physical, psychological or emotional harassment is clear on its face and excludes coverage for claims in negligence for failure to prevent bullying being perpetrated by the daughter of the insureds

D.E. v. Unifund Assurance Co., [2015] O.J. No. 3059, June 11, 2015, Ontario Court of Appeal, J.C. MacPherson, E.A. Cronk and E.E. Gillese JJ.A

Continue Reading...

Exclusion Clause Wording "Claims Arising From" is more exclusionary than "Claims For"

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...

The Standard of Review for an Umpire's Decision is "Patently Unreasonable"

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...

Insurer does not have Duty to Defend Negligent Acts Occuring within Policy Period After Policy Expires

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...