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

Defendant construction company could not benefit from a clause in a lease between the plaintiff lessee and a third party lessor requiring plaintiff to obtain construction insurance to defeat a claim by the plaintiff against the defendant arising out of damage to the plaintiff's building caused by the defendant and its subcontractors.

Bank of Nova Scotia v. Lockerbie & Hole Industrial Inc., [2013] O.J. No. 1167, March 14, 2013, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, E.M. Morgan J.

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

A motion was brought by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund to determine whether Aviva Insurance was obliged to provide uninsured motorist coverage to the plaintiff. The Court determined that the plaintiff was not entitled to uninsured motorist coverage from Aviva.

McKenzie v. Zhang, [2013] O.J. No. 638, February 11, 2013, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, E. Frank J.

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

A lessee with an option to purchase a vehicle is an "owner" under s. 1 of the Motor Vehicle Act. Other insurance policies contemplating an "owner" must be read in light of this definition.

Lombard General Insurance Co. of Canada v. Canadian Direct Insurance Inc., [2013] B.C.J. No. 41, January 11, 2013, British Columbia Supreme Court, P.D. Leask J.

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

When the particulars of a loss are destroyed by the insured peril the court will be more sympathetic to the insured when determing the quantum of the loss

Visual Design Consultants Inc. v. Royal and Sun Alliance Insurance Co. of Canada, [2012] N.S.J. No. 682, December 18, 2012, Nova Scotia Supreme Court, R.W. Wright J.

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

In a claim for coverage under the unisured automobile provisions of a policy, it was held that the term "the insured" referred to the person bringing the claim and was not limited to the named insured under the policy. The effect was to provide broader coverage for those insured under a policy who were not in a position to affect the insurance coverage arrangements that applied to them.

Jubenville v. Jubenville [2012] O.J. No. 5201, October 15, 2012, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, B.G. Thomas J.

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

A release and waiver agreement executed in relation to a zip lining expedition also released any claims for injuries as a result of a bus accident on the way to the zip line site. The bus transportation was part of the expedition and travel to and from the site was explicitly included in the activities that formed the subject of the release.

Niedermeyer v. Charlton [2012] B.C.J. No. 2339, November 8, 2012, British Columbia Supreme Court, T.C. Armstrong J.

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

When employees are covered under a "professional policy" of CGL insurance for acts "only with respect to their employment", a commercially reasonable line must be drawn between what are essentially work functions and what are essentially social functions, even if some weak connection remains between the employment and the social function.

Danicek v. Alexander Holburn Beaudin & Lang [2012] B.C.J. No. 2257, November 2, 2012, British Columbia Court of Appeal, M.V. Newbury, S.D. Frankel and E.A. Bennett JJ.A.

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

Application, prior to trial, by the insureds for a declaration that the insurers had a duty to indemnify them for all damages (other than punitive damages). Application dismissed. Where the material facts are in dispute, the insurer's duty to indemnify should not be determined prior to trial.

Oxford (County) v. Guarantee Co. of North America, [2012] O.J. No. 4887, July 13, 2012, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, V. Mitrow J.

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

Unsuccessful application by the insured for an order that the insurer was in breach of its obligation to defend and indemnify the insured. The third party claim against the insured did not trigger coverage and nonetheless would have been excluded on the basis the claim occurred well before the inception of the policy.

Bathurst (City) v. Lloyd's Underwriters, [2012] N.B.J. No. 355, August 27, 2012, New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, R. Léger J.

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

An individual who is a sole proprietor may make an insured vehicle available to himself for his regular use. Where this is shown, the individual will be deemed to be a named insured under the policy insuring the vehicle for the purposes of s. 66(1) of the SABS and the insurerer of the vehicle will be the priority insurer for statutory accident benefits.

Security National Insurance Co. v. Markel Insurance Co., and Kingsway General Insurance Co. v. Gore Mutual Insurance Co., [2012] O.J. No. 4749, October 11, 2012, Ontario Court of Appeal, J.M. Simmons, R.P. Armstrong and S.E. Pepall JJ.A.

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