An action by an insured against an insurer under the statutory Section D provisions of a policy – damages caused by an at-fault unidentified driver – is a direct action or claim against the insurer and not a claim in contract. Tucker v. AXA General Insurance, [2012] N.J. No. 315, September 25, 2012, Newfoundland and ...
Parties are presumed to be acquainted with statutory definitions of a common insurance term for the purposes of contractual interpretation where the parties are engaged in the insurance industry. In interpreting an insurance contract, the Court will consider the plain meaning of the phrase in the context of the agreement as a whole and in ...
An individual who is a sole proprietor may make an insured vehicle available to himself for his regular use. Where this is shown, the individual will be deemed to be a named insured under the policy insuring the vehicle for the purposes of s. 66(1) of the SABS and the insurer of the vehicle will ...
An insurer may not bring a subrogated claim against an employee of an insured where the insured has no right to claim against the employee. Portage La Prairie Mutual Insurance Co. v. MacLean, [2012] N.S.J. No. 520, October 1, 2012, Nova Scotia Supreme Court, P.J. Duncan J.
The issue in this case was whether the expense of insurer generated medical assessments conducted to assess a claimant’s entitlement to benefits under the Statutory Accidents Benefits Schedule were recoverable under s. 275(1) of the Insurance Act as payments “in relation to such benefits paid.” The Court held that insurer generated medical expenses were not subject ...
The appellant lessee rented a truck from the insured lessor. The contents of the truck were damaged durring the course of the lease. The lessee sought compensation under the lessor’s insurance policy’s direct compensation for property damage provisions. The insurer denied coverage. At issue was whether the lessee’s claim fell under section 247 of the Insurance Act or sections ...
At issue was was the extent of insurance coverage available for legal fees incurred by an insured. Specifically, the insurer and insured disagreed as to whether the proper interpretation of the legal expense rider was that the $500,000 limit available was per year or limited to a one time total aggregate of $500,000. The court held that ...
Two separate insurers insured two defendants in a tort action. The defendants’ were presented as one party in the tort action, and were represented by one counsel. No crossclaims were made. Following judgement, one insurer sought a declaration that the two defendants should bear equal responsibility for the tort judgments. The court held that by melding the positions of ...
Application by an insured for declaration that her homeowner policy insurer was obligated to provide her a defence to counterclaims made by defendants against her in a personal injury action commenced by her to recover for injuries suffered by her son. The court held that there was no duty to defend as the policy excluded coverage ...
