An additional insured under a commercial general liability policy was entitled to a defence in a claim in which the allegations of negligence against it and the named insured were the same.

Dufferin Construction Co., a Division of Holcim (Canada) Inc. v. Dominion of Canada General Insurance, 2015 ONSC 6311, October 13, 2015, Ontario Supreme Court of Justice, C.J. Brown J.

Continue Reading...

An insurer who agrees to provide coverage for malicious prosecution has effectively contracted out of the fortuity principle and it should not be applied so as to preclude coverage the insurer agreed to provide.

Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v. The Sovereign General Insurance Company, 2015 ONCA 702, October 22, 2015, Court of Appeal for Ontario, G.J. Epstein, S.E. Pepall and M.L. Benotto JJ.A.

Continue Reading...

The dismissal of an insurer's subrogated claim against an unnamed insured was upheld on appeal.

Rochon v. Rochon, 2015 ONCA 746, November 6, 2015, Court of Appeal for Ontario, J.M. Simmons, G.J. Epstein and G.I. Pardu JJ.A.

Continue Reading...

Regulation capping benefits for attendant care services provided by a family member at economic loss sustained by that family member did not apply retrospectively.

Davis v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co., 2015 ONSC 6624, October 27, 2015, Ontario Superior Court of Justice,E. Quinlan J.

Continue Reading...

The insured’s claims against the strata corporation and the strata insurer were dismissed after a fire caused by a tenant’s clandestine drug laboratory only caused damage to the insured’s strata unit. The quantum of damage was less than the strata corporation’s $50,000 deductible, which was not an unreasonable deductible value.

Louie v. Strata Plan VR-1323, [2015] B.C.J. No. 2186, October 8, 2015, British Columbia Supreme Court, B.M. Greyell J.

Continue Reading...

The plaintiff insured was involved in an accident while riding a newly-acquired motorcycle. He sued his insurers for failing to provide coverage for his injuries, and his insurance brokers for advising him that the motorcycle was covered under his insurance policy. The insurers, but not the brokers, brought a motion under Rule 20 for summary judgment. The Judge found that he could not make the necessary findings of fact to fairly adjudicate the issues, particularly in light of the fact that the insurance brokers had not provided evidence on the application. The motion was dismissed.

Jeliazov v. John Doe, [2015] O.J. No. 4988, September 28, 2015, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Firestone J.

Continue Reading...

The insured was not in breach of his insurance policy when he crashed his vehicle into a restaurant after consuming a bowl of Kava (a traditional Fijian drink). There was insufficient evidence to prove that a single bowl of Kava would cause the symptoms experienced by the insured. The insured did not provide a false statement by saying he had not consumed drugs in the 12 hours prior to the accident.

Venkataya v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, [2015] B.C.J. No. 1896, September 3, 2015, British Columbia Supreme Court, P.G. Voith J.

Continue Reading...

An insurer was obligated to pay for the increased cost of repairs due to the additional work required under the Building Code.  The relevant exclusion clause did not apply because it only excluded repairs relating to "by-laws" and the Building Code was not considered a "by-law".

Choukair v. Allstate Insurance Co. of Canada, [2015] O.J. No. 4361, August 20, 2015, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, M.J. Quigley J.

Continue Reading...

A Subrogated Claim against an Employee Common to both Plaintiff and Defendant is Bound to Fail

A subrogated claim against an individual and corporate entities was dismissed after the court found both the defendants and the plaintiff were the common employers of the individual who actually started the fire.

Shamac Country Inns Ltd. v. Sandy's Oilfield Hauling Ltd., [2015] A.J. No. 905, August 17, 2015, Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Master R.P. Wacowich

Continue Reading...

A Covenant to Insure is a Bar to a Subrogated Claim against a Subcontractor

A covenant to insure operated to bar a subrogated claim against a subcontractor. A subcontractor was also considered an unnamed insured even though the policy did not contain any wording expanding the definition of an insured beyond that of the named insured.

DCMS GP (Dufferin-Steeles) Inc. v. Caribbean Tower Cranes Ltd., [2015] O.J. No. 4364, August 19, 2015, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, M.D. Faieta J.

Continue Reading...