The insured plaintiff was successful in an action for payment under the policy against the defendant insurer because the insured was found not to have made wilfully misleading statements to the defendant. While the statements made by the insured’s wife to the insurer were found to be misleading, the statements were not within the scope of the wife’s authority as an agent. Moreover, nothing of an incorrect or misleading nature said by either the insured or his wife were material to the claim.

02. September 2004 0
Skuratow v. Commonwealth Insurance Co., [2004] B.C.J. No. 1823, Supreme Court of British Columbia

The Ontario Court of Appeal overturned the finding of the motions judge on a Rule 21 procedure and ruled that the death of an insured during childbirth from an amniotic fluid embolism did not result from an “accident”. For this reason, and because amniotic fluid embolism was found to be a physical illness which constituted an exclusion, coverage under the terms of the accidental death benefit rider was denied.

31. August 2004 0
Wang v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., [2004] O.J. No. 3525, Ontario Court of Appeal

This is an appeal from the decision of the motions judge holding that, pursuant to the Ontario rule, the Plaintiff had suffered an impairment as a result of an “accident” as defined in the Ontario Statutory Accident Benefit Schedule. At issue was whether the Plaintiff’s injuries were “directly caused by the use of an automobile”. The Court of Appeal held that they were not.

27. August 2004 0
Greenhalgh v. ING Halifax Insurance Co., [2004] O.J. No. 3485, Ontario Court of Appeal

A Manitoba resident, driving a vehicle insured in Manitoba, does not have to register his motor vehicle in B.C. while visiting the province for more than 30 days if he is in B.C. for touring purposes. The motorist was found to be in B.C. for touring purposes despite the fact that he was working for a relative during his visit.

26. August 2004 0
Thon v. Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation and Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, [2004] B.C.J. No. 2319, Supreme Court of British Columbia

The Court of Appeal affirmed the decision at trial that an insurer had a duty to indemnify against and defend an action brought by Dayton Hewson, an insured under a policy of liability insurance, against his father and mother, Larry and Jean Hewson, also insured under the same policy. The insurer argued that an exclusion clause in the policy excluded liability coverage for an insured in respect of a claim brought by another insured. The trial judge found that Dayton was an employee of his father, and therefore the exclusion clause did not apply. The Court of Appeal upheld the trial finding that the wording of the exclusion clause was ambiguous, and the definition of “employee” was reasonable; therefore, there was no error sufficient to warrant interference by the Court of Appeal.

20. August 2004 0
Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co. v. Hewson, [2004] S.J. No. 534, Saskatchewan Court of Appeal

This was an appeal of a decision granting the Respondent’s motion for summary judgment which dismissed the Appellant Insured’s action against an Insurer’s adjuster. The Court of Appeal granted the appeal holding that an adjuster may incur personal liability in tort if he or she engages in bad faith conduct that brings about the rejection of a valid claim for no-fault accident benefits under a standard contract of auto insurance.

22. July 2004 0
Walsh v. Nicholls, [2004] N.B.J. No. 281, New Brunswick Court of Appeal

The failure by the Defendant to keep his dog contained in the rear of his pick-up truck raised a causal connection between the injury to the Plaintiff who was bitten by the dog and the use of the truck. This satisfied the requirement that the Plaintiff’s injury arose out of the “use of” the vehicle such that both ICBC and a comprehensive personal liability insurer were jointly obligated to defend the Insured.

14. July 2004 0
Taylor v. Maris, [2004] B.C.J. No. 143, British Columbia Court of Appeal