The Court dismissed the Insured’s action in which it sought reimbursement from one of its umbrella Insurers of funds paid on its behalf by another umbrella Insurer in a claim settled on a reservation of rights basis. The evidence demonstrated that an endorsement to the umbrella policy of insurance issued by the Defendant came into effect on an occurrence rather than on a claims-made basis and the Defendant was therefore not required to respond to the claim settled by the other umbrella Insurer.

27. January 2006 0
Rio Algom v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. (c.o.b. Liberty International Canada), [2006] O.J. No. 329 Ontario Superior Court of Justice

The Court rejected the defendants’ submission that the trial on liability and damages ought to be adjourned pending a resolution of the proceedings in Ontario dealing with the plaintiff’s entitlement to no-fault benefits under an Ontario automobile policy. The Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Act clearly required the court to assess damages without regard to what benefits had been, or may be paid to the insured.

25. January 2006 0
Thibodeau (guardian ad litem of) v. Stanevicius, [2006] B.C.J. No. 131 British Columbia Supreme Court

The Court of Appeal, in dismissing the appeal, held that the waiver of subrogation clause did not apply because it had to be read in connection with the declaration page of the policy. The motions judge erred in concluding that the insurer was entitled to subrogate in the name of the landlord, who was not a named insured, based only on the insurable interest of the landlord in the building.

23. January 2006 0
Sooter Studios Ltd. v. 74963 Manitoba Ltd., (c.o.b. Sooter Bridal Salon) [2006] M.J. No. 11 Manitoba Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal held that the automobile insurer did not have a duty to defend because the plaintiff was not an “occupant” of the vehicle at the time of the incident. The Court of Appeal held, however, that the insurer of the homeowner’s policy had a duty to defend. Although the homeowner’s policy excluded coverage for claims arising from the use of a motorized vehicle”, it was at least possible based on the pleadings, that the exclusion may not apply.

13. January 2006 0
Djepic v. Kuburovic, [2006] O.J. No. 97 Ontario Court of Appeal

The court authorized the funding of a settlement reached in a derivative action commenced in the State of Delaware. The process of settlement met the test of commercial reasonableness. The mere fact that other insureds had, or may have, claims that were not finally determined, could not operate to prevent those otherwise entitled to indemnity from receiving it.

13. January 2006 0
Hollinger International Inc. v. American Home Assurance Co., [2006] O.J. No. 140 Ontario Superior Court of Justice