This was an appeal by the Insurance Corp. from British Columbia ("ICBC")of a trial decision lifting a stay of execution on a judgment obtained by Mr. Hosseini against ICBC. The Plaintiff/Respondent was successful in an action against ICBC. He was also the Defendant in a related but separate action brought by ICBC, seeking contribution to ...
This was an appeal by an insured from the decision that the insurer had no duty to defend him in an action for defamation under the terms of a homeowner’s policy. The Court of Appeal upheld the reasons of the chambers judge, relying on the "intentional act" exclusion.
The Insured Lessor was not entitled to coverage when it received notice that the Lessee of the leased vehicle had discontinued full liability and collision coverage on the vehicle which was damaged in an accident.
The Plaintiff mortgagee was entitled to judgment against the Defendant Insurer pursuant to a Standard Mortgage Clause which remained in force notwithstanding any act or neglect of the mortgagor.
The Minister of Finance was successful in appealing a decision allowing an Ontario resident ("Young") to collect no fault statutory accident benefits under a Fund created by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.41. The court held that Part VI of the Ontario Insurance Act did not apply as the accident occurred ...
The Defendant’s motion for Summary Judgment was allowed as the Defendant was protected by a Release that had previously been executed by the Plaintiff and, in any event, the court held that the Defendant had never been the Insurer of the Plaintiff.
The commercial general liability insurer ("Co-Operators") of Matthews Pallet Recycling ("Matthews Pallet") was successful in appealing a decision holding that it had a duty to defend claims advanced by passengers of an automobile involved in an accident with a truck owned by Matthews Pallet. The Court of Appeal held that allegations of "negligent business practices" ...
The Insurers of a fish plant were unable to prove that the fire which destroyed the plant was arson nor that the Insured had committed any acts which would vitiate the policies. The Insured was therefore entitled to the damages proven. The Insurer’s conduct, however, did not warrant an award of punitive damages.
In Ontario, an insured charged with one of the driving offences enumerated in the legislation is not entitled to statutory accident benefits. Paradoxically, upon conviction of that offence the insured is entitled to statutory accident benefits.
The same person cannot act as defence counsel and as counsel in a third party action against the Insurer which alleges bad faith pertaining to a failure to defend and, potentially, the conduct of a legal proceeding.