An out-of-province insurer who is a PAU signatory, and whose policy covered an insured involved in a motor vehicle accident in Ontario, is bound by the priority provisions under s. 268 of the Ontario Insurance Act. Insurance law – Automobile insurance – Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule – Priority coverage – Arbitration Coseco Insurance Co. v. ...
The Court of Appeal affirmed that the insurer was estopped from denying coverage during litigation due to prejudice. Insurance law – Homeowner’s insurance – Duty to defend – Estoppel – Practice – Appeals Commonwell Mutual Insurance Group v. Campbell, [2019] O.J. No. 4357, 2019 ONCA 668, Ontario Court of Appeal, August 26, 2019, D. Paciocco, ...
The insurer was ordered to defend a university professor against allegations that she defamed a former colleague as the claims against her raised the possibility that she was acting on behalf of the university and was thus an “additional insured” under the policy. Insurance law – Liability insurance – Duty to defend – Additional named ...
A property owner that contracted to obtain insurance to cover its contractor but neglected to obtain the policy was found liable to the contractor for legal costs incurred that would have been covered by the policy, had it been obtained as promised. Insurance law – Property insurance – Wrap-up policies – Breach of policy – ...
An insured’s business interruption loss claim is not subject to a rolling limitation period as an insurer does not have a recurring contractual obligation in respect of this claim. Insurance law – Commercial general liability insurance – Business interruption insurance – Limitation of actions – Exclusions Marvelous Mario’s Inc. v. St. Paul Fire and Marine ...
The insured’s action against her insurer for bad faith handling of her SABs claim is barred by the dispute resolution provisions of section 280 of the Insurance Act. Insurance law – Automobile insurance – Statutory provisions – Bad faith – Damages – Punitive damages – Aggravated damages – Actions – Appeals Stegenga v. Economical Mutual Insurance Co., [2019] ...
The additional insured on a CGL policy was not entitled to coverage because the loss did not arise from the named insured’s operations. The additional insured also failed to establish bad faith against the insurer, negligence against the broker, and bad faith against the broker. Insurance law – Commercial general liability insurance – Interpretation of ...
The insured’s claim for property damage was excluded from coverage by the policy’s illegal drug operations exclusion. Insurance law – Property insurance – Exclusions – Illegal acts – Landlord and tenant – Actions – Limitation of actions – Practice – Summary judgments Lafferty v. Co-Operators General Insurance Co., [2019] A.J. No. 907, 2019 ABQB 515, Alberta ...
Insurance law – Commercial general liability insurance – Duty to defend – Advertising injury – Exclusions – Interpretation of policy – Practice – Pleadings – Appeals – Costs – Special or increased costs Blue Mountain Log Sales Ltd. v. Lloyd’s Underwriters, [2019] B.C.J. No. 1200, 2019 BCCA 240, British Columbia Court of Appeal, June 28, 2019, H. ...
Insurance law – Commercial general liability insurance – All-risk – Fraud – Exclusion – Practice – Summary judgment Heart Zap Services Inc. v. Lloyd’s Underwriters, [2019] O.J. No. 3441, 2019 ONSC 3667, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, June 28, 2019, J.D. O’Flynn J. The insured is in the business of selling defibrillator units. The insured received an ...
