The defendants brought a summary judgment application to have the plaintiff’s action dismissed as barred by the Limitations Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 24, on the basis the plaintiff’s action was commenced two years and 21 days after the motor vehicle accident at issue.  The court dismissed the defendants’ limitation defence on the basis the plaintiff did not subjectively nor objectively know that her injuries were permanent in the 21 day period after the accident.

Zhu v. Matadar, [2015] O.J. No. 78, January 8, 2015, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, P.M. Perell J.

Continue Reading...

Summary judgment application to determine the meaning of the word “load” in the following exclusion clause:  “The weight of the load exceeding the registered lifting or supporting capacity of any machine.”  The insured owned an articulating boom lift that was damaged when the operator used the boom in an attempt to lever the lift out of mud in which it was stuck.  The court concluded the word “load” meant more than the weight in the manbasket and would include external resistance being applied to the lift or overall force to which the lift was being subjected.  Accordingly, the exclusion clause was engaged and the insured’s claim was dismissed.

Aspen Interiors Inc. v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co., [2015] S.J. No. 25, January 5, 2015, Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, R.S. Smith J.

 

Continue Reading...

Soil that is contaminated by a heating oil spill is not insured property under a policy of property insurance. Further, the doctrine of imminent peril does not apply to the clean-up costs as the risk of oil vapours is not an imminent peril and damage is not inevitable.

Garden View Restaurant Ltd. v. Portage La Prairie Mutual Insurance Co., [2014] N.S.J. No. 675, December 22, 2014, Nova Scotia Supreme Court, M. Stewart J.

Continue Reading...

Confirmation of coverage benefits displayed on an online portal and a confirmation statement did not amount to a certificate of coverage so as to create a contractual relationship between the insured and the insurer in an employer group disability benefits plan. The insured had no chance of success in a claim for breach of contract against the insurer when erroneously high disability coverage was corrected due to an employer error.

Sorensen v. Investors Group Financial Services Inc., [2014] N.S.J. No. 610, November 11, 2014, Nova Scotia Supreme Court, P.L. Muise J.

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...

The insured’s 19-year-old girlfriend was not considered an unnamed insured despite the fact that she was a member of the insured’s household. The definition of insured under the policy, which included any person under 21 “in the care of” the named insured, was never meant to capture a typical live-in romantic relationship.

 

 

Ryan v. Canadian Farm Insurance Corp.,[2014] M.J. No. 254, August 28, 2014, Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, C. Suche J.

Continue Reading...

An insurer was declared the dominus litis of a subrogated claim brought in the name of the insured despite the insureds making assignments in bankruptcy prior to the insurer commencing the action.

Douglas v. Stan Ferguson Fuels Ltd., [2014] O.J. No. 3741, August 13, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, B.W. Abrams J.

 

Continue Reading...

Summary trial application by the insurer for an order that the bank's claim under a standard mortgage clause be dismissed because the bank failed to comply with the applicable limitation period. The court dismissed the insurer's application and granted leave to bring a further summary trial application after there had been document production and examinations for discovery. The court found that evidence on why the insurer did not pay the bank was required in order to make a determination of the issues.

Royal Bank of Canada v. Canadian Northern Shield Insurance Co. [2014] B.C.J. No. 1974, July 28, 2014, British Columbia Supreme Court, W.J. Harris J.

Continue Reading...

At appeal, the court upheld the trial judge’s decision that a tenant’s insertion of cardboard into furnace controls which caused the furnace to run continually until failure, did not fall within the mechanical breakdown or pollution exclusion under the insured landlord’s all-risk insurance policy. The court also upheld the lower court’s decision that the letter from the adjuster advising no proof of loss was required constituted waiver of the insured’s requirement to file the proof of loss.

O'Byrne v. Farmers' Mutual Insurance Co., [2014] O.J. No. 3303, July 11, 2014, Ontario Court of Appeal, G.J. Epstein, S.E. Pepall and K.M. van Rensburg JJ.A.

Continue Reading...

Reasonable preventative measures taken by an insured to prevent probable future damages may not be recoverable where the policy excludes coverage for any defect or fault in material or design. This was the case even where an insured loss occurred in an identical piece of machinery as a result of the same defect for which the insured then took preventative steps. The insured’s costs to repair and business losses were a result of its own precautionary measures, and not an accidental or fortuitous event.

Mississippi River Power Corp. v. Municipal Electric Assn. Reciprocal Insurance Exchange [2014] O.J. No. 3007, June 23, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, M.Z. Charbonneau J.

Continue Reading...