Canadian Insurance Law Blog – Page 80

The Court held that the insured’s coverage in a standard automobile insurance policy for loss or damage to the “automobile, including its equipment” did not extend to the insured’s surveillance equipment. The surveillance equipment was not integral to the automobile’s use as a mode of transportation.

18. November 2005 0

Posted by Harper Grey

I.C.U. Investigation Inc. v. Royal & SunAlliance Insurance Co. of Canada, [2005] N.B.J. No. 490, New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench

In order to obtain survivor benefits under a motor vehicle policy issued by the Saskatchewan Government Insurance Company for the death of a former spouse, the surviving spouse must prove that there is a valid spousal agreement in place at the time of the deceased’s death. An obligation to pay spousal support is not sufficient to entitle the surviving spouse to benefits.

17. November 2005 0

Posted by Harper Grey

Falasca (Litigation Guardian of) v. Saskatchewan Government Insurance, [2005] S.J. No. 802, Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal held that the life insurance policy was not in effect at the time of the deceased’s death due to a change in the deceased’s insurability between the time the application was completed and the time the policy was delivered. The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge did not err in finding that there was no conflict between subsection 142(1)(c) of the Saskatchewan Insurance Act and the proviso in the policy.

17. November 2005 0

Posted by Harper Grey

Anderson v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada, [2005] S.J. No. 708, Saskatchewan Court of Appeal

The British Columbia Provincial Court found that the cause of loss was the negligence of the driver of the vehicle. The Court held that the definition of “comprehensive coverage” in Regulation 447/83 of the Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Act was not exhaustive. As such, negligence as a cause of loss or damage was included in the “comprehensive coverage”.

14. November 2005 0

Posted by Harper Grey

Pfleger v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, [2005] B.C.J. No. 2482, British Columbia Provincial Court

A person who operates a motor vehicle without a driver’s licence, with the implied consent of the registered owner, is in breach of s. 55(5) of the Regulations under the Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Act, B.C. Reg. 447/83 and is not entitled to indemnity under the policy of automobile insurance

07. November 2005 0

Posted by Harper Grey

Insurance Corp. of British Columbia v. Chaytor, [2005] B.C.J. No. 2417, British Columbia Supreme Court

A personal liability umbrella policy contained in the standard “Option “W”” endorsement which provides $1 million of uninsured automobile coverage does not stack or augment existing automobile insurance policies to provide coverage of a loss greater than $1 million

04. November 2005 0

Posted by Harper Grey

Suchan v. Casella, [2005] O.J. No. 4740, Ontario Superior Court of Justice

An Insured who is entitled to temporary total disability benefits under a policy of insurance, but returns to work, is not entitled to resume temporary total disability benefits if his disability returns after the 104-week qualifying period

01. November 2005 0

Posted by Harper Grey

Mayson v. Chubb Insurance Company of Canada, [2005] B.C.J. No. 2364, British Columbia Supreme Court

The Court awarded costs against the insureds on a substantial indemnity basis. The Court also held that the Ministry, which had withdrawn its subrogated claim during trial just before the Defendants opened their case, was not jointly and severally liable for costs.

01. November 2005 0

Posted by Harper Grey

DiBattista v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co., [2005] O.J. No. 4865, Ontario Superior Court of Justice

The plaintiff, who was disabled from working at medium and heavy employment was nevertheless not totally disabled from an occupation within the range of his education, training and experience

31. October 2005 0

Posted by Harper Grey

Plouffe v. Mutual Life Assurance Co. of Canada, [2005] B.C.J. No. 2382, British Columbia Supreme Court

An Insurer has a duty to defend an Insured if there is a possibility that the allegations in the Statement of Claim permit a judgment against an Insured within the terms of the policy of insurance. Whether there was any merit to the alleged claim, or whether the alleged claim could be proven at trial, is irrelevant. Furthermore, it is inappropriate to rely upon the Statement of Defence and third party pleadings when determining whether a duty to defend existed.

28. October 2005 0

Posted by Harper Grey

Wi-Lan Inc. v. St. Paul Guarantee Insurance Co., [2005] A.J. No. 1416, Alberta Court of Appeal

Previous
1
…
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
…
99
Next

Search Anything