Insurer’s application for declaration that its obligation to contribute to the costs of defending its insureds was limited to pro rata share based on time “on risk” was dismissed. Lombard General Insurance Co. of Canada v. 328354 B.C. Ltd., [2012] B.C.J. No. 590, March 26, 2012, British Columbia Supreme Court, G.B. Butler J.
The Court of Appeal determined that the limitation period for a “loss transfer claim” made by one insurer against another for indemnification for statutory accident benefits (“SABs”) paid to an insured begins to run on the day after the insurer seeking indemnification makes a demand for loss transfer.Insurer’s application for declaration that its obligation to ...
Insurer estopped from relying on s. 35 of the Insurance Act because it was aware of facts which made s. 35 relevant when it appointed counsel to defend its insured. Personal Insurance Co. v. Alexander Estate, [2012] N.W.T.J. No. 20, March 2, 2012, Northwest Territories Supreme Court, V.A. Schuler J.
Insured’s claims against insurer for breach of duty of good faith is governed by general six year limitation period and not s. 207 of the Insurance Act. Dundas v. Zurich Canada, [2012] O.J. No. 1321, March 22, 2012, Ontario Court of Appeal, E.A. Cronk, R.A. Blair JJ.A and G.R. Strathy J. (ad hoc)
OPCF 44-R carrier was not liable to plaintiff for any damages within the policy limits of the insured defendant’s policy. Lefebvre-Jackson v. Salt, [2012] O.J. No. 1234, March 15, 2012, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, D.R. McDermot J.
Insurer found to owe a duty to defend and indemnify the applicant pursuant to an indemnity agreement between the applicant and the insured. Minto Developments Inc. v. Carlsbad Paving and Intact Insurance, [2012] O.J. No. 1089, March 8, 2012, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, S.J. Kershman J.
$100,000 in punitive damages was awarded against an insurer for alleging fraud against its insured in respect of a fire loss in circumstances which the Court described as a “high-stakes litigation strategy”. Brandiferri v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co., [2012] O.J. No. 2869, June 22, 2012, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, P. Lauwers J.
Although the insurer was found to owe a duty to defend to its insureds, because most of the claims would not be covered the court ordered an apportionment of defence costs. Tedford v. TD Insurance Meloche Monnex, [2012] O.J. No. 2821, June 22, 2012, Ontario Court of Appeal, S.E. Lang, G.J. Epstein and A. Hoy ...
An insurer could not rely on intentional act exclusion in s. 118 of the Insurance Act in circumstances where the insured intentionally reversed his vehicle in the direction of the plaintiff but did not intend to hit her. Savage v. Belecque, [2012] O.J. No. 2818, June 21, 2012, Ontario Court of Appeal, R.P. Armstrong, R.A. ...
