Plaintiff’s insurer was required to provide coverage due to a material misrepresentations made by driver of the other vehicle involved in an accident.
Wen v. Unifund Assurance Co.,  O.J. No. 4386, September 20, 2012, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, S.M. Stevenson J.
A dispute arose between two insurers as to which insurer was required to respond to an action for damages arising out of a motor vehicle accident. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company provided insurance coverage to the plaintiff. Unifund Assurance Company provided coverage to the driver and owner of the other vehicle that was involved in the accident.
On the date of the accident, the driver did not have any insurance with respect to that vehicle. The driver’s common-law husband had policies of insurance with Unifund with respect to two other vehicles. On the day after the accident, the driver called her insurance broker and requested the addition of the vehicle involved in the accident, to the other policy. On the basis of the insured’s misrepresentations, the Court found that there was no coverage under the Unifund policy and State Farm was required to respond to the plaintiff’s claim.
To stay current with the new case law and emerging legal issues in this area, subscribe here.