The Court concluded that the extension of coverage for Interruption by Civil Authority did not provide coverage for subsequent consequential losses that occurred after access by a civil authority was no longer denied.

Strata Plan KAS3058 v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co. (c.o.b. Travellers) [2013] B.C.J. No. 2651, December 2, 2013, British Columbia Supreme Court, M.L. Fleming J.

Continue Reading...

The court gave effect to the terms of an insuring agreement for a professional liability claims-made-and-reported policy, which provided that the failure to disclose any situation or circumstance which may in the future result in a claim excluded coverage of any action subsequently emanating therefrom. As coverage for this action never existed, the insured could not seek relief against forfeiture.

Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London v. All Spec Home Inspections, [2013] O.J. No. 5246, November 19, 2013, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, J.W. Quinn J.

Continue Reading...

The issuer of a comprehensive general liability policy brought an application seeking a declaration that the issuer of an excess liability policy was required to contribute to defence costs incurred on behalf of their common insured. The Court of Appeal upheld a decision holding that there was no overlapping coverage for defence costs under the policies and, therefore, the excess insurer had no duty to contribute to the defence costs.

ACE INA Insurance v. Associated Electric & Gas Insurance Services Ltd., [2013] O.J. No. 5162, November 14, 2013, Ontario Court of Appeal, E.E. Gillese, R.G. Juriansz and G.R. Strathy 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...

Disability insurer's decision to void a policy on the basis of material misrepresentations with respect to the insured's health on his application for insurance was upheld on appeal.

Walsh v. Unum Provident, [2013] N.S.J. No. 582, November 8, 2013, Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, M. MacDonald C.J.N.S., J.W.S. Saunders and J.E. Fichaud JJ.A.

Continue Reading...

No-fault statutory benefit insurer had no right to bring crossclaim against disability insurer for reimbursement of benefits paid by no-fault insurer when disability insurer had denied liability to the insured.

Ng. v. Cole, [2013] O.J. No. 4867, October 24, 2013, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, J.C. Murray J.

Continue Reading...

The insured was granted leave to appeal the decision of an arbitrator where the arbitrator took a "fault-based" analysis in determining an insurer's obligations under a policy rather than applying the principles of contractual interpretation.

Bal v. British Columbia (Ministry of Agriculture), [2013] B.C.J. No. 2345, October 25, 2013, British Columbia Supreme Court, L.A. Warren J.

Continue Reading...

An insurer's application for summary judgment was dismissed as the court could not determine the limitation period for a claim alleging bad faith.

Redden v. Manufacturers Life Insurance Co., [2013] N.B.J. No. 309, October 4, 2013, New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, P.C. Garnett J.

Continue Reading...

Dispute over the meaning of "making good" faulty workmanship in an exclusion clause of a builders risk policy. The court found the clause was ambiguous and it was construed contra proferentem against the insurers.

Ledcor Construction Ltd. v. Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Co., [2013] A.J. No. 1088, October 7, 2013, Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, T.D. Clackson J.

Continue Reading...

Plaintiff's claim against defendant insurance brokers dismissed on basis that plaintiff adduced no expert evidence of standard of care and there was sufficient insurance available to plaintiff.

Midas Investment Corp. v. Dominion of Canada General Insurance Co., [2013] O.J. No. 3403, July 22, 2013, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, K.E. Swinton J.

Continue Reading...