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...

No duty to defend was found where the true nature of the claim could not be determined from the pleadings.

University of Waterloo v. Scottish & York Insurance Co., [2014] O.J. No. 1103, February 24, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, D.J. Gordon 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...

 

Application by insurer for declaration that homeowner's policy which excluded the cost of making good faulty material or workmanship did not apply to loss in circumstances where statement of claim alleged faulty workmanship was denied on basis that the cause of loss might not be limited to faulty workmanship.

Hallett v. Fitzpatrick, [2013] N.J. No. 438, December 19, 2013, Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court, C. Thompson 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...

 

In Willoughby v. Pilot Insurance Co., the insurer provided home insurance on the insureds’ home, which was destroyed by fire. The insurance policy included a Guaranteed Replacement Cost on Buildings (“GRC”) endorsement. After the fire, the insureds decided not to rebuild or repair the fire-damaged home. Instead, they purchased a home in another location and moved there. In light of the insureds’ decision to relocate instead of rebuilding, the insurer took the position that they were not entitled to payment under the GRC endorsement but only basic fire loss coverage. The insureds commenced an action against the insurer and sought summary judgment.

Willoughby v. Pilot Insurance Co., a Division of Aviva Canada Inc., [2014] O.J. No. 45, January 7, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, D.G. Stinson J.

Continue Reading...

Appeal of a finding that the lessee of a vehicle was the "owner" of the vehicle by virtue of the definition of "owner" under the Motor Vehicle Act such that the defendant driver was not an additional insured. Appeal dismissed. Although it was doubtful the lessee was an "owner" under the policy wording, the vehicle was licensed in the lessee's name and the defendant driver was not an additional insured.

Lombard General Insurance Co. of Canada v. Canadian Direct Insurance Inc. [2013] B.C.J. No. 2673, December 5, 2013, British Columbia Court of Appeal, P.D. Lowry, D.M. Smith and E.A. Bennett JJ.A.

Continue Reading...

The Court of Appeal considered whether the addition of the words "compensation similar to benefits" to section 106 of the Insurance (Vehicle) Regulation changed the meaning of section 106 such that compensation in the form of sick bank accumulation should be deducted from damages awarded for past income loss. The Court found that the words "compensation similar to benefits" did not remove the element of insurance from a plain reading of the section. The accumulation of sick leave credits does not involve an element of insurance. Accordingly, sick banked time is not deductible.

Jordan v. Lowe [2013] B.C.J. NO. 2647, December 3, 2013, British Columbia Court of Appeal, R.T.A. Low, C.E. Hinkson and D.C. Harris JJ.A.

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 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...