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 ...
An application by the insurer seeking summary judgment on the grounds that there was no genuine issue for trial was dismissed. Although the insured was not in technical compliance with the proof of loss procedure, the issue of whether the insurer was prejudiced by the insureds actions remained. There were triable issues raised by the facts ...
An application by the insurer for a declaration that it had no duty to defend or indemnify the insured and his son was dismissed in part. There was no coverage for the son, as he was an excluded driver under the policy. Although the son was an ‘excluded driver’ under the policy, the evidence did ...
Axa Insurance Company (‘Axa’) sought a summary judgment to dismiss an action using a limitation period defence filed against it by its insured under unidentified vehicle coverage policy following a 68 vehicle pile-up. The motion for summary judgment was dismissed. Mawji v. Axa Insurance Co., [2009] O.J. No. 3621, September 2, 2009, Ontario Superior Court of ...
The plaintiff argued successfully that s. 267.8(9) of the Insurance Act, R.S.O 1990, c.I.8, (‘the Act’) did not apply to future collateral benefits received after a settlement agreement rather than after a trial of the action. Stokes v. Desjardins Groupe D’Assurances Generales, [2009] O.J. No. 3608, July 17, 2009, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, R.J. ...
The defendant insurer was successful in its motion to appeal a decision allowing the plaintiffs to amend their pleadings to include an uninsured motorist claim over 10 years after the accident. MacGregor v. Royal and Sun Alliance Insurance Co. of Canada, [2009] O.J. No. 3573, June 24, 2009, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, H. MacLeod-Beliveau J.
Two separate actions were heard together in this case. The Builder (“Aspen”) sued for the balance due on a construction contract and the homeowner counterclaimed for defective workmanship and materials. Kingsway General Insurance Company, the homeowner warranty provider (“the Insurer”), sought indemnification from the builder for any sums it was ordered to pay the homeowner under the ...
