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...

A dispute arose over the application of an indemnity clause in a contract between a golf tournament host and golf course owner. The plaintiff was injured in a golf cart accident. When the indemnity clause was read as a whole, it obliged the golf tournament host to indemnify the golf course owner for the golf course owner's own negligence.

Neely v. MacDonald, [2014] O.J. No. 2285, May 12, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, F.L. Myers J.

Continue Reading...

This was a summary trial pursuant to s. 530 of the Insurance Act for judgment against the defendant's insurer. The insurer argued the farm policy was void ab initio because of non‑disclosure of a material fact or, in the alternative, the "business pursuits" exclusion clause applied. The Court dismissed the plaintiff's action because the "business pursuits" exclusion excluded coverage. The plaintiff was injured in the course of a horse riding lesson that was a "business pursuit" of the defendant insured.

Burch v. Intact Insurance Co., [2014] A.J. No. 540, May 20, 2014, Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, S.J. Greckol J.

Continue Reading...

A release signed by a plaintiff participating in a zip line activity did not defeat the plaintiff's claim for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle collision on the defendant zip line operator's bus travelling from the zipline area. The release was contrary to public policy, which did not allow an owner/operator of a motor vehicle to contract out of liability for damages for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident.

Niedermeyer v. Charlton [2014] B.C.J. No. 763, April 30, 2014, British Columbia Court of Appeal, E.A. Bennett, N.J. Garson, and C.E. Hinkson JJ.A.

Continue Reading...

No duty to defend was found where the true nature of the claim could not be determined from the pleadings.

University of Waterloo v. Scottish & York Insurance Co., [2014] O.J. No. 1103, February 24, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, D.J. Gordon J.

Continue Reading...

The plaintiff commenced an action against the defendant's insurer on the basis the plainitff's damaged goods were insured by the defendant's insurer as if they were the property of the defendant. The Court concluded the goods were not insured. The defendant had not agreed to arrange insurance for the goods and the plaintiff was not an unnamed beneficiary under the policy.

Merex Inc. v. Stoney Island Fisheries Ltd., [2014] N.S.J. No. 79, February 21, 2014, Nova Scotia Supreme Court, J.D. Murphy J.

Continue Reading...

Application on the issue of whether the insurer had a duty to defend the insured in legal proceedings alleging damages caused by defective work. The insured’s plumbing work was completed while the insurance policy was valid. Years later, the plumbing system failed and caused damage. The insurer argued the pleadings did not allege facts showing that an occurrence causing damage took place before the expiry of the policy and in the alternative, the damage was excluded from coverage as a result of the "your work" exclusion. The insurer's application was dismissed because there was an occurrence during the policy period and the insurer could not demonstrate that the exclusion clause clearly applied.

Co-operators General Insurance Co. v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co., [2014] N.S.J. No. 111, January 27, 2014, Nova Scotia Supreme Court, M.J. Wood J.

Continue Reading...

The insurer had separate policies of insurance with the plaintiff and the defendant. The plaintiffs argued that because they were also policy holders with the insurer, the insurer owed them a duty of good faith and fair dealing and the insurer was obliged to settle the plaintiffs' action against the defendants. The plaintiffs' action against the insurer was dismissed because the insurer owed no duty to the plaintiffs simply because the plaintiffs had an insurance policy with the insurer.

Sweet v. Sweet, [2014] S.J. No. 84, January 27, 2014, Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, R.C. Mills J.

Continue Reading...

Although the insured’s claim for indemnification under a commercial general liability insurance policy for the cost of destroying a contaminated product sold by the insured to the third party was for a fortuitous loss, it did not fall within coverage as the insured did not prove the event that caused the contamination.

Westaqua Commodity Group Ltd. v. Sovereign General Insurance Co., [2014] B.C.J. No. 284, February 18, 2014, British Columbia Supreme Court, J. Steeves J.

Continue Reading...