The Court of Appeal upheld a trial decision holding that an insurer (“Royal”) was entitled to rely on an exclusion clause denying coverage for “loss or damage resulting from the intentional or criminal acts of … any person insured by this policy” where the insured homeowner’s (“Torchia’s”) husband committed arson in destroying Torchia’s home. The court rejected the argument that the wording of the exclusion clause was ambiguous and could be interpreted to only exclude losses suffered by the person committing the act.

03. June 2004 0
Torchia v. Royal & SunAlliance Insurance Co. of Canada, [2004] O.J. No. 2316, Ontario Court of Appeal

The operator of the SkyDome (“Sportsco”) was successful in obtaining a declaration that its insurer under a CGL policy (“ING”) had an obligation to defend Sportsco in an action commenced by the Toronto Blue Jays baseball team arising from damage to SkyDome’s retractable roof allegedly caused by the negligence of Sportsco which resulted in the cancellation of a baseball game.

27. May 2004 0
ING Insurance Co. of Canada v. Sportsco International L.P., [2004] O.J. No. 2254 Ontario Superior Court of Justice

In order to deny first party benefits under an insurance policy on the basis that the insured attempted to commit suicide, the insurer must overcome the common law presumption against the commission of suicide. Overcoming this presumption requires the insurer to establish, with clear and unequivocal evidence, that the insured committed or attempted to commit suicide.

05. May 2004 0
Huber (Guardian ad litem of) v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, [2004] B.C.J. No. 903, British Columbia Supreme Court

Laforme was involved in a single motor vehicle accident while driving his girlfriend’s uninsured motor vehicle. Laforme’s action seeking a declaration of entitlement to statutory accident benefits against the insurer of his father’s motor vehicle (“Wabisa”) was dismissed because the court found that Laforme was not a dependent of his father at the time of the accident.

28. April 2004 0
Laforme v. Wabisa Mutual Fire Insurance Co., [2004] O.J. No. 2025 Ontario Superior Court of Justice

This was an Appeal by the third party Pizza Nova of the dismissal of its motion for summary judgment. The Plaintiff Freudmann and Defendant Tran were in an MVA. Freudmann was injured. Tran was underinsured. Freudmann asserted a claim under her underinsured motorist protection against her insurer, Zurich. Zurich learned that Tran was delivering pizza at the time of the accident for Pizza Nova, and issued a third party claim against Pizza Nova. Pizza Nova sought to have the third party claim dismissed on the basis that Zurich’s only claim against it was subrogated and therefore must be brought in the name of the insured. The motions court held that the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure allowing third party actions by any Defendant against any party who “may be liable … for all or part of the claim” and the Rule was sufficient to allow the third party action. The Appeal court agreed that the Rule was sufficient to override the normal subrogation principle that would prevent an insurer from suing in its own name. The appeal was dismissed.

26. April 2004 0
Freudmann-Cohen v. Tran, [2004] O.J. No. 1699 Ontario Court of Appeal