Water damage caused by water seeping through the foundational walls of an insured’s property was outside the scope of the insured’s “water escape” coverage, as being “ground water” or “surface water”. It did not matter whether this water seepage happened slowly or suddenly.

20. June 2016 0
Insurance law – Homeowner’s insurance – Coverage – Interpretation of policy – Water damage – Exclusions – Wear and tear Hojjatian v. Intact Insurance Co., [2016] O.J. No. 1834, 2016 ONSC 2318, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, April 6, 2016, S.A.Q. Akhtar J. This action arose after the insured plaintiff’s home sustained significant water damage. ...

Optional uninsured motorist coverage is distinct from the uninsured motorist protection provided for under the Ontario Insurance Act. The latter is a creature of statute, which excludes coverage for uninsured vehicles owned by an insured or their spouse. The former is subject to the principles of policy interpretation and may provide coverage for an uninsured vehicle owned by an insured or their spouse, even if the language is identical to the Insurance Act.

20. June 2016 0
Insurance law – Automobile insurance – Consent to drive – Uninsured motorist – Underinsured motorist – Statutory provisions – interpretation Skunk v. Ketash, [2016] O.J. No. 2050, 2016 ONSC 2019, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, March 22, 2016, W.D. Newton J. This action arose out of a single vehicle accident (the “Accident”) involving a vehicle ...

Statutory reporting requirements under Ontario’s Uninsured Automobile Coverage Regulation are not conditions precedent akin to limitation periods. The Courts may grant relief from forfeiture to insureds who have failed to comply with these requirements.

22. February 2016 0
Insurance law – Automobile insurance – Policies and insurance contracts – Uninsured motorist – Statutory provisions – Notice and proof of loss – Non-compliance with policy – Discretion of court – Relief against forfeiture – Statutory conditions Dams v. TD Home and Auto Insurance Co., [2016] O.J. No. 26, 2016 ONCA 4, Ontario Court of ...

Ontario’s no-fault insurance scheme precludes a vehicle owner from recovering damages for accelerated depreciation from the tortfeasor who is responsible for damaging the said vehicle. A party cannot rely on the law of bailment to circumvent the no-fault scheme where the true cause of action is in tort.

22. February 2016 0
Insurance law – Automobile insurance – Policies and insurance contracts – No-fault coverage – Statutory provisions – Damages – Accelerated depreciation – Bailment – Derivative claims Keyhani v. Downsview Chrysler Toronto, [2016] O.J. No. 20, N/A Court File No. SC-13-24083-0000, Ontario Superior Court of Justice – Small Claims Court, Toronto, Ontario. January 4, 2016, J.C.F. ...

The plaintiff insured was involved in an accident while riding a newly-acquired motorcycle. He sued his insurers for failing to provide coverage for his injuries, and his insurance brokers for advising him that the motorcycle was covered under his insurance policy. The insurers, but not the brokers, brought a motion under Rule 20 for summary judgment. The Judge found that he could not make the necessary findings of fact to fairly adjudicate the issues, particularly in light of the fact that the insurance brokers had not provided evidence on the application. The motion was dismissed.

17. November 2015 0
Insurance law – Automobile insurance – Policies and insurance contracts – Extension of contract – Coverage – Unidentified motorist – Underinsured motorist – Statutory provisions – Salvage clauses – Practice – Summary judgments availability Jeliazov v. John Doe, [2015] O.J. No. 4988, 2015 ONSC 5856, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, September 28, 2015, Firestone J. ...

The insured was not in breach of his insurance policy when he crashed his vehicle into a restaurant after consuming a bowl of Kava (a traditional Fijian drink). There was insufficient evidence to prove that a single bowl of Kava would cause the symptoms experienced by the insured. The insured did not provide a false statement by saying he had not consumed drugs in the 12 hours prior to the accident.

17. November 2015 0
Insurance law – Automobile insurance – Policies and insurance contracts – Breach of policy – Exclusions – Impaired driver Venkataya v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, [2015] B.C.J. No. 1896, 2015 BCSC 1583, British Columbia Supreme Court, September 3, 2015, P.G. Voith J. The action arose out of a single vehicle accident (the “Accident”). The ...