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...

The insurer denied coverage for water damage to the insured’s basement because it was caused by “continuous or repeated seepage”, which was an excluded risk. The court found that the insurer was incorrect in determining this to have been the cause of the water damage, and held that the exclusion did not apply to the loss. The court did not award punitive damages because the conduct of the insurer in denying the claim was only misguided and could not be descibed as malicious, oppressive or highanded.

Moffat v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co. [2014] O.J. No. 2124, April 25, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, B. Babcock Deputy J.

Continue Reading...

Pollution exclusion in homeowner's policy may not apply to circumstances where sound insulation releases noxious gas that renders the home uninhabitable.

Robinson v. Primmum Insurance Co., [2014] O.J. No. 487, January 31, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, A.D. Grace J.

Continue Reading...

 

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...