An additional insured under a commercial general liability policy was entitled to a defence in a claim in which the allegations of negligence against it and the named insured were the same.

Dufferin Construction Co., a Division of Holcim (Canada) Inc. v. Dominion of Canada General Insurance, 2015 ONSC 6311, October 13, 2015, Ontario Supreme Court of Justice, C.J. Brown J.

Continue Reading...

An insurer who agrees to provide coverage for malicious prosecution has effectively contracted out of the fortuity principle and it should not be applied so as to preclude coverage the insurer agreed to provide.

Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v. The Sovereign General Insurance Company, 2015 ONCA 702, October 22, 2015, Court of Appeal for Ontario, G.J. Epstein, S.E. Pepall and M.L. Benotto JJ.A.

Continue Reading...

Horse Rider Training does not Fall within Scope of Farm Insurance Policy

Insured failed to inform the insurance broker of all equine activities he engaged in when he purchased the policy.  In particular, the insured failed to inform the broker that he may engage in the activity of providing horseback riding lessons, which was not found to be a "farm activity" under the policy. The Alberta Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge’s decision that the action as against the insurer was dismissed.

Burch v. Intact Insurance Co., [2015] A.J. No. 735, July 3, 2015, Alberta Court of Appeal, E.I. Picard, P.A . Rowbotham and B.K. O'Ferrall JJ.A.

Continue Reading...

Only One of Three Insurers had a Duty to Defend Alleged Oil Leak

The defendant vendor of a fuel oil tank which was alleged to have leaked sought a defence from its insurers under three separate liability insurance policies. One insurer was unable to rely on the limitation period in its policy and was required to provide a defence. The claims did not fall within coverage or were excluded under the two other policies.

Daverne v. John Switzer Fuels Ltd., [2015] O. J. No. 1589, March 31, 2015, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, G. Mew J.

Continue Reading...

An Insurer Must Defend an Entire Claim Where Multiple Bases for Liability Exist but Only One is Covered

In a personal injury action, the occupier of a premises was entitled to a partial defence under the liability policy of the contactor it hired to do snow maintenance. The contractor was entitled to a full defence under the liability policy of the subcontractor it hired to do the work.

Delcor Enterprises Ltd. v. Economical Insurance Group, [2015] M.J. No. 85, March 25, 2015, Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, S.D. Greenberg J.

Continue Reading...

Three Insurers Had a Duty to Defend the Insured and to Share Defence Costs Equally

Commercial general liability insurers are under duty to defend insured in third party claims and to share the costs on a proportionate basis.

UPS Supply Chain Solutions Inc. v. Airon HVAC Service Ltd., [2015] O.J. No. 1360, March 18, 2015, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, W.M. Matheson J.

Continue Reading...

Insurer Had no Duty to Defend Estate of Intoxicated Boat Operator

The insured, who had blood alcohol limit three times the legal limit, was killed in a motor boat accident which also injured the passenger. The insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify the insured’s estate in the action brought by the passenger as there was no contractual obligation to defend, and the duty to indemnify was excluded because the motorboat was “operated illegally”.

Heffernan Estate v. Lloyd's Canada, [2015] O.J. No. 599, February 10, 2015, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, E.P. Belobaba J.

Continue Reading...

The defendant commenced third party proceedings against the insured's insurer seeking a declaration that the insurer owed a duty to defend and indemnify it against the plaintiff’s claims. The plaintiff subsequently discontinued its claim against the insured. The insurer brought an application pursuant to rule 21 for an order dismissing the third party claim on the basis it disclosed no reasonable cause of action. The insurer argued the true nature and substance of the plaintiff's claim did not concern the operations of the insured. The application was dismissed because the pleadings alleged the defndant was liable for breach of contract as a result of the negligence of the insured. This fell squarely within the insurance coverage.

Innvest Real Estate Investment Trust (c.o.b. Travelodge Airport North Bay) v. 1328151 Ontario Inc. (c.o.b. Paul Davis Systems of North Bay Nipissing), [2014] O.J. No. 4799, October 10, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, M.G. Ellies J.

Continue Reading...

Appeal by the insured of a summary judgment dismissing its subrogated claim. The motion judge dismissed the action on the basis the defendants could take advantage of the insured's insurance coverage as third party beneficiaries, or alternatively, the parties' contractual arrangements made it clear that the insured's policy of insurance was for the benefit of all those engaged in the insured's project. The appeal was dismissed on the basis the contractual arrangement could only be understood as an undertaking to obtain insurance for the benefit of the insured's contractors and subcontractors and a waiver of claims in respect of losses covered by such insurance.

De Beers Canada Inc. v. Ootahpan Co.,[2014] O.J. No. 4904, October 21, 2014, Ontario Court of Appeal, G.R. Strathy, P.S. Rouleau and C.W. Hourigan JJ.A.

Continue Reading...

The insurer was obligated to assume the defence of an additional named insured because all the plaintiff’s claims potentially arose out of or were related to the primary insured’s operations.

Sinclair v. Markham (Town), [2014] O.J. No. 4202, September 10, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, E.P. Belobaba J.

Continue Reading...