The insured Plaintiff and driver of a vehicle with an expired owner’s certificate was entitled to an Order that ICBC indemnify her in a separate action pursuant to s. 49(1) of the Revised Regulation (1984) because s. 1(3) of the Regulation states that a reference to an owner’s certificate is a reference to a valid and subsisting owner’s certificate

22. July 2005 0
Chamberlin v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, [2005] B.C.J. No. 1666, British Columbia Supreme Court

The Court considered the indemnity and defence obligations of an insurer under a project professional liability policy and held that: the practice policies of the insureds were required to be disclosed to the insurer on a confidential basis; payment for covered claims should be made according to the first-come, first-served principle until the Policy limits were exhausted; and that the insurer required the consent only of the insured making the claim for coverage which was the subject of a recommended settlement, rather than the consent of all of the insureds

04. July 2005 0
Commerce & Industry Insurance Co. Canada, Inc. v. Singleton Associated Engineering Ltd., [2005] A.J. No. 886, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench

Westridge Construction Ltd. was insured through a commercial general liability policy by a number of insurers over various times. Westridge constructed a swine barn pursuant to a request for tenders issued by Genex Swine Group. The swine barn collapsed, and Westridge was sued by Genex for breach of contract in constructing a faulty swine barn, and for negligently failing to warn Genex about the unsuitability of the materials that were proposed in the construction of the swine barn. The commercial general liability policy clearly excluded damages resulting from the breach of contract, but the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal determined that the allegations in negligence constituted an actionable claim, and that Westridge was entitled to a defence under the terms of its commercial general liability policy.

17. June 2005 0
Westridge Construction Ltd. v. Zurich Insurance Co., [2005] S.J. No. 396, Saskatchewan Court of Appeal

A clear and unequivocal denial of benefits is a pre-condition for the commencement of the limitation period for disability insurance contracts. A communication by an insurer to an insured that a claim for disability insurance has been denied, but would be reviewed upon the provision of additional medical evidence does not postpone the commencement of the limitation period.

15. June 2005 0
Pekarek v. Manufacturers Life Insurance Co., [2005] B.C.J. No. 1344, British Columbia Supreme Court

When an insured car is damaged beyond repair and the insurer elects to take title to the salvage, the insurer is entitled to reduce its payment to its insured by the amount of the deductible in the policy. A five-panel bench of the Ontario Court of Appeal overturned McNaughton Automotive Ltd. v. Co-operators General Insurance Co. (2001), 54 O.R. (3d) 704 (ONCA) on the basis that McNaughton Automotive Ltd. was wrongly decided.

15. June 2005 0
Segnitz v. Royal & SunAlliance Insurance Co. of Canada (Appeal by Dominion of Canada General Insurance Co. and Economical Insurance Group), [2005] O.J. No. 2436, Ontario Court of Appeal