The Plaintiff’s claim for long-term disability benefits under a group policy of insurance issued by the Defendant was dismissed. The court held that a pre-existing condition exclusion clause was operative where symptoms of a disorder were exhibited during the applicable waiting period even though the ultimate diagnosis of the condition was delayed until after the expiry of the waiting period.

29. March 2004 0
Van Maele v. Alberta Blue Cross Benefits Corp., [2004] A.J. No. 367, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench

Without prejudice letters from an adjuster to a third party who has threatened, but not commenced an action against an insured, can confirm a cause of action and extend the limitation period, if a reasonable person objectively viewing the letters would conclude that the insurer was going to settle the threatened personal injury claim, or at the very least, that the only issue in dispute would be the quantum of the claim

22. March 2004 0
Korecki v. Duong, [2004] B.C.J. No. 551, British Columbia Supreme Court

An Insured who makes a claim against an unidentified automobile under s.33 of the Newfoundland Insurance Act is required to prove that all reasonable efforts in the circumstances were made to ascertain the identity of the owner or driver of the unidentified automobile and the reasonableness of such efforts is to be judged from the time of the accident, not when the Insured becomes aware of the injury and potential cause of action

03. March 2004 0
Donovan v. McCain Foods Ltd., [2004] N.J. No. 70, Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court – Court of Appeal

The Insured was not entitled to recover against the Insurer or the Brokers for losses arising out of three instances of defective workmanship on reconditioned farm equipment since the CGL policy provided by the Insurer excluded losses of that nature. The Broker was not the agent of the Insurer and did not negligently misrepresent the nature of the policy to the Insured.

01. March 2004 0
Moody’s Equipment Ltd. v. Royal and Sun Alliance Insurance Co. of Canada, [2004] S.J. No. 113, Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench

The Appellant Insurer was not entitled to rely on a ratability clause pertaining to “sue and labour” expenditures as the application of that clause was limited by the policy to specific circumstances which were not present on the facts. Nor did section 79(2) of the Marine Insurance Act apply to reduce the recovery of the Insured since the loss arose from a peril insured against, namely vandalism.

01. March 2004 0
North Coast Sea Products Ltd. v. ING Insurance Co. of Canada, [2004] B.C.J. No. 375, British Columbia Court of Appeal