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

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.

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

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.

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

A plaintiff filed a claim against his insurer after his home was destroyed by fire. The plaintiff’s claim was dismissed.

Duguay v. Lloyd's Underwriters, [2012] N.B.J. No. 438, October 31, 2012, New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench - Trial Division, R. Léger J.

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

Insurer was not under a duty to defend an insured in an action where the insured, a teacher, was alleged to have committed assault and battery in respect to a student.

Dube v. BCAA Insurance Corp., [2012] B.C.J. No. 2751, December 24, 2012, British Columbia Supreme Court, S.F. Kelleher J.

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

The insurer ("Axa") was successful in obtaining an order compelling the insured, Lauzon (the "plaintiff"), to attend either at an examination under oath or at an examination for discovery to answer questions pertaining to the quantum of damages despite the fact that the appraisal procedure under the Insurance Act had been invoked.

Lauzon v. Axa Insurance (Canada), [2012] O.J. No. 5871, November 27, 2012, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, C.S. Glithero J.

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

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

The Insurer was found to owe its insured a duty to defend in circumstances where the plaintiffs amended their claim from one alleging fraud to one alleging negligence.

Aitken v. Unifund Assurance Co. [2012] O.J. No. 4450, September 25, 2012, Ontario Court of Appeal, S.E. Lang, G.J. Epstein and A. Hoy JJ.A.

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

The Insured's failure to give his insurer notice of a Notice of Health Hazard entitled the insurer to deny coverage on the basis that there was a material change in the insurer's risk.

Mah v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co. [2012] A.J. No. 981, September 19, 2012, Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, T.D. Clackson J.

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

An application by an insurance company for a declaration regarding coverage under a policy of insurance. The application was allowed in part.

Belair Direct v. Shoup, [2012] O.J. No. 3795, August 8, 2012, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, E.M. Morgan J.

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

An insurer sought a declaration that it was not required to defend the grandparents, uncle and father of a child in a separate action brought by the child claiming damages for bodily injury. The insurer argued that the grandson was residing in the grandparents’ household and sought a declaration that coverage was thereby excluded. The application was dismissed.

Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Co. of Canada v. Araujo, [2012] B.C.J. No. 1677, August 9, 2012, British Columbia Supreme Court, B. Fisher J.

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