The vacancy of a residence constitutes a material change in risk in a policy of home insurance, and the insurance policy is voided by the failure of the insured to notify of the change in risk upon vacating the premises. The policy is void whether the policy is payable in favour of the insured, or a third party, such as a bank with a mortgage in trust in the property.

15. January 2004 0
Royal Bank of Canada v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., [2004] O.J. No. 91, Ontario Court of Appeal

This was an appeal by the Plaintiff Credit Union from a summary trial judgment dismissing the claim. The trial judge held that the credit union’s loss from credit card fraud was not covered by its indemnity for “securities” as defined in the master bond policy issued by the Respondent insurers. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that credit card receipts fell within the definition of securities as “drafts”.

30. December 2003 0
North Shore Credit Union v. Cumis General Insurance Co., [2003] B.C.J. No. 2923, British Columbia Court of Appeal

This was an appeal by the Insurance Corp. from British Columbia (“ICBC”) of a trial decision lifting a stay of execution on a judgment obtained by Mr. Hosseini against ICBC. The Plaintiff/Respondent was successful in an action against ICBC. He was also the Defendant in a related but separate action brought by ICBC, seeking contribution to a settlement made on his behalf. ICBC was successful at trial in imposing a stay of execution on the judgment against ICBC, pending resolution of the action for contribution. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal holding that there was no basis in law to allow ICBC to seek to set off what it must pay, by any sum it may in due course be adjudged entitled to recover.

22. December 2003 0
Hosseini-Nejad v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, [2003] B.C.J. No. 2887, British Columbia Court of Appeal

The Minister of Finance was successful in appealing a decision allowing an Ontario resident (“Young”) to collect no fault statutory accident benefits under a Fund created by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.41. The court held that Part VI of the Ontario Insurance Act did not apply as the accident occurred in New Mexico and Young’s insurance policy, purchased in New Mexico, did not need to comply with the mandatory coverage provisions of Ontario’s Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act.

11. December 2003 0
Young v. Ontario (Minister of Finance), [2003] O.J. No. 4832