An insurer was not entitled to rely on a contractual limitation period shortening the statutory limitation period because the wording for when the limitation period commenced was not clear. The limitation period did not start to run until after the appeals process had been exhausted.

Kassburg v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada, [2014] O.J. No. 1090, March 7, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, M.G. Ellies J.

Continue Reading...

Despite an exclusion for bodily injury caused by the use of a gun, the insurer had  a duty to defend claims the insured had breached its duties related to its capacity as an occupier of the premises where the shooting occured.

Kinkade v. 947014 Ontario Inc. (c.o.b. The Silver Dollar), [2014] O.J. NO. 1271, March 20, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, G. Roccamo 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...

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...

 

Errors & Omissions Insurer entitled to decline a defence to its insured, a lawyer, on the basis of a notwithstanding clause which allowed it to decline to defend an insured on the basis of a reasonable investigation rather than on the basis of the pleadings.

Juroviesky and Ricci LLP v. Lawyers Professional Indemnity Co., [2014] O.J. No. 40, January 6, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, W.M. Matheson J.

Continue Reading...

 

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...