Coverage was not excluded as against two insureds as a result of an alleged intentional act on the part of another insured, because the claim in negligence against the two insureds was distinct and not derivative of the intentional tort claimed against the other insured. D.E. v. Unifund Assurance Co., [2014] O.J. No. 4271, September ...
The insured’s 19-year-old girlfriend was not considered an unnamed insured despite the fact that she was a member of the insured’s household. The definition of insured under the policy, which included any person under 21 “in the care of” the named insured, was never meant to capture a typical live-in romantic relationship. Ryan v. Canadian Farm ...
Reasonable preventative measures taken by an insured to prevent probable future damages may not be recoverable where the policy excludes coverage for any defect or fault in material or design. This was the case even where an insured loss occurred in an identical piece of machinery as a result of the same defect for which the insured ...
What constitutes a claim for the purposes of the definition of “claim” under a policy of insurance is determined according to an objective test in light of the reality of what the third party communicated to the insured by words or conduct. This does not always require a specific threat of legal proceedings. In this case, a ...
Where an insurer refuses to make payment under a policy, the limitation period runs from the date the claimant first knew, or in the circumstances ought to have known, that the insurer refused to make payment under a contract of insurance, rather than from the date of the loss. The insured’s claim is not against the ...
Two or more errors, omissions or negligent acts are “related” for the purposes of a policy where there is a sufficient association or connection between them, reading the policy as a whole and bearing in mind its objective. In determining whether there is a sufficient association or connection, the court must consider the similarities and difference ...
Significant aggravated and punitive damages were warranted due to the insurer’s breach of the duty of utmost good faith and the effect of that breach on the insured. The insurer breached the duty of utmost good faith where: it failed to fairly assess the need for rehabilitation services; it failed to disclose an IME relevant to the ...
