An insurer was time barred from bringing a loss transfer claim against a second insurer by operation of the doctrine of laches. Zurich Insurance Co. v. TD General Insurance Co., [2014] O.J. No. 2550, May 27, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, S.N. Lederman J.
A broker can crossclaim against an insurer where a declaration on the issue of coverage could provide the broker with a complete defence. JBI v. ACE Ina Insurance, [2014] O.J. No. 2615, May 30, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Master J. Haberman
The principle that a claim for indemnification does not arise, and therefore does not trigger the running of the limitation period, until a request for indemnification is made does not apply if s. 18 of the Limitation Act also applies. Old Republic Insurance Co. of Canada v. Aviva Canada Inc., [2014] O.J. No. 2580, May ...
An insurer was not entitled to rely on a contractual limitation period shortening the statutory limitation period because the wording for when the limitation period commenced was not clear. The limitation period did not start to run until after the appeals process had been exhausted. Kassburg v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada, [2014] O.J. ...
No duty to defend was found where the true nature of the claim could not be determined from the pleadings. University of Waterloo v. Scottish & York Insurance Co., [2014] O.J. No. 1103, February 24, 2014, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, D.J. Gordon J.
Despite an exclusion for bodily injury caused by the use of a gun, the insurer had a duty to defend claims the insured had breached its duties related to its capacity as an occupier of the premises where the shooting occured. Kinkade v. 947014 Ontario Inc. (c.o.b. The Silver Dollar), [2014] O.J. NO. 1271, March 20, ...
The court reviewed and clarified the definition of a “dependent” under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule. Security National Insurance Co. v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co., [2013] O.J. No. 5661, December 9, 2013, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, E.M. Morgan J.
The court relied on grammar and punctuation to conclude a coverage provision was not ambiguous and the plain meaning was that coverage did not apply. 1088437 Ontario Inc. (c.o.b. Northmore Fuels) v. GCAN Insurance Co., [2013] O.J. No. 5407, November 28, 2013, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, J.R. MacKinnon J.
The schedule or list of vehicles required under a fleet policy is not an “amendment” to an insurance policy. Relief from forfeiture relates to a proof of loss and is not an available remedy unless coverage has first been established. Northbridge General Insurance Corp. v. 943240 Alberta Ltd., [2013] A.J. No. 1453, December 31, 2013, ...
