This is the appeal of a trial finding that an insurer was liable to indemnify the insured owner of a trailer when an uninsured tractor pulling the trailer was involved in a fatal collision. At issue was whether the trial judge erred in his application of the Amos decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, and/or in his interpretation of that decision. The Court of Appeal upheld the trial decision, albeit with different reasoning, and held that there was a causal relationship between the use of the trailer and the collision triggering a duty to indemnify.

Hauck v. Dominion of Canada General Insurance Co., [2005] A.J. No. 513, Alberta Court of Appeal

This is the appeal of a judgment by the motions court holding that an excess insurer was required to contribute pro rata to defence costs incurred by a primary insurer in defending an action where the claim was settled. The Appeal court reversed in part, holding that the excess insurer was responsible to contribute only to costs incurred after it had definitive notice that a judgment could exceed the policy limits of the primary insurer.

ING Insurance Co. of Canada v. Federated Insurance Co. of Canada, [2005] O.J. No. 1718, Ontario Court of Appeal

This was an automobile insurer’s appeal of a decision ordering it to pay for separate counsel to defend its insured. At issue was whether the insurer, after adding itself as a third party to a civil action against its insured, had the right to take a position incongruent with the interests of the insured Defendant by raising issues relevant to a coverage dispute between the insurer and insured. The Court of Appeal upheld the motions court decision that the insurer and its counsel did not have the right to take a position contrary to its insured, regardless of whether coverage was in dispute.

28. April 2005 0
Parlee v. Pembridge Insurance Co., [2005] N.B.J. No. 174, New Brunswick Court of Appeal

An insured who is found to be in breach of the conditions of his automobile insurance is responsible to compensate his insurer for funds paid to a third party under his policy of insurance. The insurer’s ability to recover these funds from its insured is not effected by the fact that it consented to a Consent Dismissal Order terminating the action commenced against its insured for the injuries suffered in the accident.

05. April 2005 0
Insurance Corp. of British Columbia v. Schmidt, [2004] B.C.J. No. 2892, British Columbia Supreme Court