Application by insurer for declaration that homeowner's policy which excluded the cost of making good faulty material or workmanship did not apply to loss in circumstances where statement of claim alleged faulty workmanship was denied on basis that the cause of loss might not be limited to faulty workmanship.

Hallett v. Fitzpatrick, [2013] N.J. No. 438, December 19, 2013, Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court, C. Thompson J.

Continue Reading...

 

In Willoughby v. Pilot Insurance Co., the insurer provided home insurance on the insureds’ home, which was destroyed by fire. The insurance policy included a Guaranteed Replacement Cost on Buildings (“GRC”) endorsement. After the fire, the insureds decided not to rebuild or repair the fire-damaged home. Instead, they purchased a home in another location and moved there. In light of the insureds’ decision to relocate instead of rebuilding, the insurer took the position that they were not entitled to payment under the GRC endorsement but only basic fire loss coverage. The insureds commenced an action against the insurer and sought summary judgment.

Willoughby v. Pilot Insurance Co., a Division of Aviva Canada Inc., [2014] O.J. No. 45, January 7, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, D.G. Stinson J.

Continue Reading...

The insurer’s appeal from a decision that the insurer had a duty to defend a third party claim issued against the insureds in a personal injury action was dismissed. The third party claim fell within the general coverage provision, and the wording of the household exclusion clause did not apply to exclude an indirect, third party claim from coverage.

Bawden v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co., [2013] O.J. No. 5385, November 26, 2013, Ontario Court of Appeal, D.H. Doherty, S.T. Goudge and P.D. Lauwers JJ.A.

Continue Reading...

On an application for summary judgment it was held that the plaintiff’s 19 year old girlfriend was not a person under the age of 21 in his care and she was therefore not an unnamed insured under the policy. An exclusion for loss or damage resulting from the criminal or intentional act of any person insured by the policy therefore did not apply.

Ryan v. Canadian Farm Insurance Corp., [2013] M.J. No. 391, November 8, 2013, Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, Master J.M. Cooper.

Continue Reading...

The insured under a policy of homeowner’s insurance was found to be entitled to a defence in a tort action in which he was named as a defendant in his personal capacity and in his capacity as an officer and director of several companies also named as defendants in the tort action. It was held that the allegations against the insured were broad enough to include conduct outside the insured’s corporate duties and for which the corporate defendants may not be liable.

Martin v. Royal & Sun Alliance Co. of Canada, [2013] B.C.J. No. 2468, November 12, 2013, British Columbia Supreme Court, N.H. Smith J.

Continue Reading...

Insured under home insurance policy is not required to give insurer notice of vacancy or reduced occupancy for a period of less than 30 days.

Peebles v. The Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company, [2013] B.C.J. No. 2389, November 1, 2013, Supreme Court of British Columbia, Newbury J., Hall J. and Chiasson J.

Continue Reading...

An insurer cannot deny coverage on the basis of an insured's failure to notify of a material change in the risk where the insurer has knowledge of the change in the risk, even if the knowledge is imputed to the insurer by way of agency.

Mah v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co., [2013] A.J. No. 1164, October 31, 2013, Alberta Court of Appeal, J.E.L. Cote, J. Watson and B.K. O'Ferrall JJ. A.

Continue Reading...

Liability coverage under a homeowner's insurance policy was excluded on the basis of a motorized vehicle exclusion for claims brought against the insureds and their son in relation to an incident where the son loaned an all-terrain vehicle owned by the father to a friend. However, the claims against the son and the mother were brought back into coverage by an exception to the exclusion for claims arising from the use or operation of a non-owned motor vehicle.

Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company v. Hannam, 2013 NLCA 37, May 24, 2013, Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal, Green C.J.N.L., Welsh and Harrington JJ.A.

Continue Reading...

Claims of deceit will generally not give rise to insurance coverage

No coverage under homeowner policy for claim against vendor for fraudulent misrepresentation leading to sale of home.

Chrysanthis v. Ali, [2013] O.J. No. 1239, March 18, 2013, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, D.F. Baltman J.

Continue Reading...

Damages associated with the loss of marijuana plants is limited to $1,000 per plant

An action for coverage under a homeowner's insurance policy to recover the full value of legally cultivated marijuana plants was dismissed. Coverage was limited to $1000 per plant as per the extended coverage provisions of the policy. The fact that the plants were not grown for "landscaping" purposes did not bring them under the general contents coverage under the policy.

Stewart v. TD General Insurance Co., [2013] O.J. No. 955, March 7, 2013, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, J.A. Ramsay J.

Continue Reading...