This is an appeal by the insurer of a motions court decision that it had a duty to defend an insured against a claim for the intentional tort of trespass to land. The insured, a schoolboy, allegedly started a fire on school property. On a motion, the Public Trustee of Manitoba, as Litigation Guardian of the student, brought a successful application to compel Co-operators to defend. Co-operators appealed on the basis of wording in the homeowner’s insurance policy an issue which excluded coverage for property damage caused intentionally. The Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the motions court, holding that even though the fire was alleged to have been started intentionally and the damages to the school may have been unforeseen, the claims as pleaded raised a possibility that a court could find that the act therefore was a negligent one.

15. October 2004 0
R.D.F. (Litigation Guardian of) v. Co-operators General Insurance Co., [2004] M.J. No. 382, Manitoba Court of Appeal

This was the appeal and cross-appeal of a summary judgment in which the lower court held that the insurer had no duty to defend Innopex in a U.S. intellectual property action. At issue was an action commenced against the insured and its employee by Gucci for trademark infringement and other infringement claims. The Court of Appeal held that there was a duty to defend, and the lower court made an improper inquiry into the evidence in the underlying infringement action.

15. October 2004 0
Halifax Insurance Co. of Canada v. Innopex Ltd., [2004] O.J. No. 4178, Ontario Court of Appeal

A subcontractor in a power plant construction project, Rotating Equipment Services Inc. (“RES”), was successful in obtaining an order that Continental Insurance Co. (“Continental”) was obliged, under a wrap-up policy, to provide a defence to RES to a counterclaim filed by the owner of the power plant, Canadian Gas & Electric Company Ltd. (“CG&E”). The court found that the allegations against RES included claims for damages relating to property that was not designed or installed by RES, and therefore, coverage was not excluded by the work/product exclusion clauses in the policy.

28. September 2004 0
Rotating Equipment Services Inc. v. Continental Insurance Co., [2004] A.J. No. 1340, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal overturned the decision of the Queen’s Bench setting aside a settlement of a damage claim for personal injuries sustained in a minor car accident. The Court held that the trial judge erred in concluding that the Insurer (“SGI”) misused its position of power in an unconscionable manner where the Plaintiff had suggested the settlement, the amount was set objectively using an SGI formula, and the Plaintiff declined to discuss the proposed settlement with her mother or anyone else.

28. September 2004 0
Burkhardt v. Gawdun, [2004] S.J. No. 592, Saskatchewan Court of Appeal

The application of the Defendant Insurers (“Lloyd’s”) to strike the Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim was dismissed where the court held it was not obvious that the Plaintiff’s bad faith action could not succeed where it remained possible for the Plaintiff to add a supporting cause of action on the insurance policy

22. September 2004 0
Forestex Management Corp. v. Lloyd’s Underwriters, Lloyd’s, London, [2004] F.C.J. No. 1576, Federal Court Vancouver, British Columbia

British Columbia’s statutory automobile insurance is generally the primary insurance for damage to property resulting from an automobile accident. Where the damage results from the abandonment of a trailer truck’s cargo after an accident, ICBC is liable only for the costs of removing the cargo when a legal obligation is imposed upon the driver to remove the cargo. A legal obligation may not arise if an actual order to remove the cargo by a regulatory authority has not been made.

21. September 2004 0
Protrux Systems Inc. v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, [2004] B.C.J. No. 1967, British Columbia Supreme Court

British Columbia’s statutory automobile insurance is the primary insurance for damage to property resulting from an automobile accident. Where the damage results from the abandonment of a trailer truck’s cargo after an accident, ICBC is liable only for the costs of removing the cargo when a legal obligation is imposed upon the driver to remove the cargo from the accident site. A legal obligation to remove the cargo may arise despite the fact that an actual order to remove the cargo by a regulatory authority has not been made.

21. September 2004 0
Westside Transport Inc. v. Continental Insurance Co., [2004] B.C.J. No. 1971, British Columbia Supreme Court