Intact Insurance Company was unsuccessful in seeking a declaration that it was required to defend an action for direct damage only, and that it was not obliged to defend or indemnify for damages relating to consequential damage, as the court held that it was not clear whether the loss would be found to be a ...
Appeal by insurer from an order requiring it to defend the insured in a third party proceeding was dismissed. Chambers judge correctly concluded that the statement of claim should be considered in the determination of whether a duty to defend arose. Since the Statement of Claim alleged negligence arising from the insured’s use and operation ...
Appeal from a provincial court decision finding that the insured had a right of indemnification against I.C.B.C. for the cost of repairing damage to its motor-vehicle was dismissed. The provincial court judge did not err in finding that s. 68(1) of the Insurance( Motor Vehicle) Act applied only to multi-car accidents. Further, even if the ...
Application by a broker for an order declaring insurer liable to indemnify or make contribution to him for the settlement paid to insured plaintiffs was dismissed. The law of agency precluded the relief the broker sought because the insurer was entitled to indemnity from the agent for his negligence in handling the insured plaintiffs’ policy. As ...
Appeal by Popert from a restitution order requiring him to pay $40,537 to an insurance company was allowed. The court’s jurisdiction to make the restitution order rested on the words of section 738(1)(a) of the Criminal Code as well as on subrogation. The scope of s. 738 is not limited to persons whose property has ...
A restaurant joined as a third party by the Defendant insurance company sought a summary judgment under Rule 22 of the New Brunswick Rules of Court. Granting the motion the judge held that based on the evidence the restaurent had fulfilled the requirements placed on a commercial host under the circumstances and did not see ...
The insured Plaintiff brought a motion that he not be required to pay attendance money in order to conduct an oral examination for discovery of a knowledgeable person produced by the Defendant. The Defendant insurance company argued unsuccessfully that it did not reside in Manitoba and its designated knowledgeable person was in Vancouver. MacAngus v. Royal ...
The insureds’ action against its insurance broker for breach of its duty of care was allowed. The broker did not fully explain to the insured the limitations of the policy that they had purchased. Sampson v. AA Munro Insurance, [2009] N.S.J. No. 493, September 14, 2009, Nova Scotia Small Claims Court, Adjudicator E.K. Slone
An appeal by insurer from a finding that it was responsible for coverage of damages arising from a motor-vehicle accident was allowed. The trial judge had erred by failing to consider s. 114 of the Insurance Act R.S.N.S. 1989 c. 231 and the prevailing jurisprudence, which holds that if an operator drives an owner’s vehicle ...