Canadian Insurance Law Blog - Page 90 of 116 -

The Court was asked to determine the order in which and to what extent three insurers were responsible for indemnifying and defending the insured under three different policies. The Court found that one policy was the primary insurance policy, and the other two were excess insurance policies. The primary Insurer would have to indemnify and defend the Insured up to the policy limits, after which point the excess insurance would be required to contribute equally up to the respective policy limits.

22. August 2006 0

Posted by Harper Grey

McKenzie v. Dominion of Canada General Insurance Co., [2006] O.J. No. 3475, Ontario Superior Court of Justice

The Court dismissed the Insured’s application for a declaration the Insurer had a duty to defend the Insured who had driven his 170 horsepower SeaDoo into the Plaintiff. There was no ambiguity in the limitation clause which precluded coverage for watercraft less than 26 feet long.

14. August 2006 0

Posted by Harper Grey

Desjardins v. Luck, [2006] O.J. No. 3838, Ontario Superior Court of Justice

The Plaintiff succeeded in his action against the Defendant car rental agency which was found liable for damages sustained in a motor vehicle accident when the vehicle was driven by an unauthorized driver. The permitted driver acquiesced to the unauthorized driver’s use of the vehicle by riding in the car with him and therefore continued to remain “in possession” of the vehicle.

11. August 2006 0

Posted by Harper Grey

Henwood v. Coburn, [2006] O.J. No. 3275, Ontario Superior Court of Justice

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal of motion judge’s decision dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant’s Insurer pursuant to s.258(1) of the Insurance Act because the Insured was not entitled to indemnity under the policy.

04. August 2006 0

Posted by Harper Grey

Winch v. Kedgh, [2006] O.J. No. 3182, Ontario Court of Appeal

The Small Claims Court judge found ICBC liable as a nominal defendant after an unidentified assailant damaged the Claimant’s vehicle with a baseball bat while both their vehicles were stopped at an intersection

26. July 2006 0

Posted by Harper Grey

Garnier v. Kilkenny, [2006] B.C.J. No. 1787, British Columbia Provincial Court

A house which suffers water damage is not vacant, under the terms of standard property insure, if a tenant has control over the house, but resides at a different property

15. July 2006 0

Posted by Harper Grey

Mattock v. Saskatchewan Mutual Insurance Co., [2006] S.J. No. 423

As a preliminary matter to an Application to determine whether an Insurer was obligated to share in the costs of defending an Insured under a liability policy, the Insurer sought a ruling as to the proper law to be applied to the policy. The Court ruled that the proper law of the contract was New York.

14. July 2006 0

Posted by Harper Grey

Commercial Union Assurance Co. of Canada v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, [2006] M.J. No. 258, Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench

A primary insurer does not have to provide its certificate of insurance to a secondary insurer until a condition precedent for payment of funds under the secondary coverage has occurred

13. July 2006 0

Posted by Harper Grey

Arnold v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co., [2006] N.J. No. 211, Newfoundland Supreme Court

An insured does not have to undergo an independent medical examination, when the physician conducting the examination creates a tense atmosphere such that the examinee feels uncomfortable during the assessment

11. July 2006 0

Posted by Harper Grey

Gogna v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., [2006] O.F.S.C.D. No. 115, Ontario Financial Services Commission

The Insurer of a Defendant driver who settled with the Plaintiff sought indemnification from the Insurer of the Defendant driver’s employer. The Court found that s. 277(1) of the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.8, applied to establish priority between the Defendant driver’s “owner’s policy” which was “first loss” insurance and the Defendant employer’s “non-owner’s policy” which was excess insurance only.

10. July 2006 0

Posted by Harper Grey

Trainor v. Barker, [2006] O.J. No. 3858, Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Previous
1
…
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
…
116
Next

Search Anything