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

The Court of Appeal substantially allowed the appeal from a motion decision striking out numerous claims in a proposed class action relating to the sale and administration of four types of life insurance policies. The plaintiffs' claims for breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing and for deceit and fraud were not mere reiterations of the plaintiffs' claim for negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation and should be allowed to stand. Their claim for breach of contract was based on ambiguious terms in the contract and was likewise allowed to stand. A claim relating to settlement entered into by the defendant insurer was struck out on the basis that no relief was being claimed.

Kang v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada, [2013] O.J. No. 768, February 25, 2013, Ontario Court of Appeal, J.I. Laskin, M. Rosenberg and S.T. Goudge JJ.A.

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

The defendant insurer sought dismissal of a claim for coverage under the uninsured automobile provisions of a policy. The claim had been denied on the basis the insured was in breach of the statutory conditions of the policy. The insurer brought a motion for summary dismissal and the motion was dismissed. The insurer appealed and the Court of Appeal upheld the motion decision, holding that the statutory conditions did not apply to uninsured automobile coverage. The Court of Appeal also held that the Limitation Act applied to a cross-claim brought by the Minister of Finance under the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Act, but stayed the application to have the cross-claim dismissed.

Bruinsma v. Cresswell, [2013] O.J. No. 770, February 22, 2013, Ontario Court of Appeal, J.I. Laskin, H.S. LaForme and A. Hoy JJ.A.

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

An action for coverage under a homeowner's insurance policy to recover the full value of legally cultivated marijuana plants was dismissed. Coverage was limited to $1000 per plant as per the extended coverage provisions of the policy. The fact that the plants were not grown for "landscaping" purposes did not bring them under the general contents coverage under the policy.

Stewart v. TD General Insurance Co., [2013] O.J. No. 955, March 7, 2013, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, J.A. Ramsay J.

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

Dismissal of a motion by the insurer (statutory third party) to set aside summary judgment on liability against its insureds (the defendant driver and the defendant owner) because the insurer was attempting a collateral attack on a prior order refusing to set aside default judgment against one of the insureds (the defendant owner).

Roy v. Lapointe, [2013] O.J. No. 557, February 4, 2013, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, M.P. Eberhard J.

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

Litigation privilege does not automatically attach on the basis that litigation counsel has been retained in relation to an incident. Litigation privilege that arises between parties will dissolve if one party takes action against the other.

Jetport Inc. v. Global Aerospace Underwriting Managers (Canada) Ltd., [2013] O.J. No. 156, January 10, 2013, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, R.F. Goldstein J.

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

Where coverage under an original policy lapses in accordance with its own terms, the principles of contract formation, rather than contractual interpretation, may apply in determining whether a new policy has come into existence.

Khosah v. Canada Life Assurance Co., [2013] B.C.J. No. 99, January 11, 2013, British Columbia Court of Appeal, R.T.A. Low, D.M. Smith and A.W. MacKenzie JJ.A.

• 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

The insurer ("Axa") was successful in obtaining an order compelling the insured, Lauzon (the "plaintiff"), to attend either at an examination under oath or at an examination for discovery to answer questions pertaining to the quantum of damages despite the fact that the appraisal procedure under the Insurance Act had been invoked.

Lauzon v. Axa Insurance (Canada), [2012] O.J. No. 5871, November 27, 2012, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, C.S. Glithero J.

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

Application for summary judgment by the defendant insurance company primarily on a limitations issue. The application was dismissed.

Boyce v. Co-Operators General Insurance Co., [2012] O.J. No. 5288, November 13, 2012, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, M. J. Quigley J.

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

Insured equipment is not excluded from coverage by a rental exclusion clause where title remains with the insured even though possession has passed on to a third party if possession is transferred pursuant to a contract of sale.

Economical Insurance Group (c.o.b. Plant Hope Adjusters Ltd) v. Master Forestry Ltd., [2012] N.S.J. No. 536, October 11, 2012, Nova Scotia Supreme Court, D. MacAdam J.

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