The Court of Appeal held that the automobile insurer did not have a duty to defend because the plaintiff was not an “occupant” of the vehicle at the time of the incident. The Court of Appeal held, however, that the insurer of the homeowner’s policy had a duty to defend. Although the homeowner’s policy excluded coverage for claims arising from the use of a motorized vehicle”, it was at least possible based on the pleadings, that the exclusion may not apply.

13. January 2006 0
Djepic v. Kuburovic, [2006] O.J. No. 97 Ontario Court of Appeal

The court authorized the funding of a settlement reached in a derivative action commenced in the State of Delaware. The process of settlement met the test of commercial reasonableness. The mere fact that other insureds had, or may have, claims that were not finally determined, could not operate to prevent those otherwise entitled to indemnity from receiving it.

13. January 2006 0
Hollinger International Inc. v. American Home Assurance Co., [2006] O.J. No. 140 Ontario Superior Court of Justice

The court held that the insurer properly denied defence coverage under the “notwithstanding clause”. The allegations in the pleadings combined with the admissions made by the insured were sufficient to trigger the mortgage broker/mortgage intermediary exclusion. As such, the insurer’s decision to deny defence coverage was based on reasonable grounds.

10. January 2006 0
James v. Lawyers’ Professional Indemnity Co., [2006] O.J. No. 46, Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Section 20 of the Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Act enables a person insured by the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (“ICBC”), injured in a motor vehicle accident in British Columbia, to seek compensation directly from ICBC once judgment has been obtained for damages. S. 20 also provides ICBC with a right to be compensated by the person responsible for the accident for funds paid to the insured pursuant to s. 20. If ICBC does not comply strictly with the requirements imposed on it by s. 20, ICBC is not entitled to seek compensation from the responsible party.

05. January 2006 0
Insurance Corp. of British Columbia v. Hosseini, [2006] B.C.J. No. 6, British Columbia Court of Appeal

An insured threw a tire iron at a third party. The tire iron struck the third party in the temple and killed him. The insurance company was required to provide the insured with a defence to the civil action commenced against him by the deceased family because there was a real possibility that the insured could be found to have killed the third party as a result of negligence, as opposed to an assault or trespass to the person without lawful justification.

22. December 2005 0
Miller v. Grain Insurance and Guarantee Co., [2005] S.J. No. 767, Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench