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...

Defendant certified financial planner was not covered under a general liability policy in respect to a claim arising from the plaintiffs' investment in a specific project, which turned out to be a fraudulent scheme.

Yanaky v. Arch Insurance (Canada), [2014] O.J. No. 3951, August 27, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, S.E. Firestone J.

Continue Reading...

After thoroughly reviewing the law on the defintion of "accident", the court concluded the insured's foolish attempt to take-off with only one functioning engine in a two-engine aircraft, resulting in a crash, was still an accident.

Van Berlo v. Aim Underwriting Ltd., [2014] O.J. No. 3885, August 19, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, V. Mitrow J.

Continue Reading...

Insured's application for a declaration that the insurer owed a duty to defend regarding an action commenced by a contractor seeking damages for breach of contract, quantum meruit and unjust enrichment for unpaid work . The insured's application was dismissed because the pleadings did not contain a claim for a "wrongful act" within the meaning of the policy.

Thunder Bay Masonic Foundation v. Sovereign General Insurance Co. [2014] O.J. No. 3660, July 11, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, F.B. Fitzpatrick J.

Continue Reading...

Absolute pollution exclusion in commercial general liability policy precluded coverage for a claim arising from a spill of home heating oil.

Breton Petroleum Ltd. v. Aviva Insurance Co. of Canada, [2014] N.S.J. No. 298, June 16, 2014, Nova Scotia Supreme Court, K. Coady J.

Continue Reading...

It is appropriate for insurer to seek contribution from other insurers by filing an originating application pursuant to Rule 3.2(1) of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench Rules.

Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Corp. v. Intact Insurance Co., [2014] A.J. No. 611, June 10, 2014, Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, W.P. Sullivan J.

Continue Reading...

An insurer was time barred from bringing a loss transfer claim against a second insurer by operation of the doctrine of laches.

Zurich Insurance Co. v. TD General Insurance Co., [2014] O.J. No. 2550, May 27, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, S.N. Lederman J.

Continue Reading...

The principle that a claim for indemnification does not arise, and therefore does not trigger the running of the limitation period, until a request for indemnification is made does not apply if s. 18 of the Limitation Act also applies.

Old Republic Insurance Co. of Canada v. Aviva Canada Inc., [2014] O.J. No. 2580, May 28, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, S.N. Lederman J.

Continue Reading...