-
Recent Posts
Archives
- October 2015
- July 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- May 2014
- January 2014
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- November 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- September 2011
- May 2011
- February 2011
- October 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- November 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- November 2008
- October 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
- April 2005
- March 2005
- January 2005
- December 2004
- November 2004
- October 2004
- September 2004
- July 2004
- June 2004
- May 2004
- April 2004
- March 2004
- December 2003
- November 2003
- May 2003
- April 2003
Categories
- Advertising Injury
- Allocation of Defence Costs
- Appeals
- Auto
- Auto (Tort)
- CGL
- Collateral Benefits
- Commercial Litigation
- Conflict of Laws
- Contract
- Costs
- Damages
- Defamation
- Discoverability
- Discovery
- Duty to Defend
- Environmental
- Evidence
- Exclusions
- Experts and Opinions
- Fire Insurance
- Fires
- FLA
- Insurance News
- Juries
- Lawyers
- Limitation Periods
- Litigation Technology
- Municipalities
- Occupier's Liability
- Pleadings
- Practice and Procedure
- Practice of Law
- Privacy
- Privilege
- Products Liability
- Professional Liability
- Risk Transfer
- Sale of Goods
- Social and Commercial Host Liability
- Subrogation
- Threshold
- Tort News
- Trial Procedure
- Uncategorized
- Uninsured or Underinsured
- Waivers and releases
Meta
Category Archives: Auto
C.A. Says Action Against Underinsured Insurer Can Proceed Even After Plaintiff Settles with Tort Insurer for Less Than Policy Limits
The Court of Appeal has handed down a ruling that is important for auto insurers. The Court has held that an injured plaintiff can still sue his or her own insurer, pursuant to an OPCF-44R underinsured motorist endorsement, even after … Continue reading
Posted in Auto, Uninsured or Underinsured
Comments Off on C.A. Says Action Against Underinsured Insurer Can Proceed Even After Plaintiff Settles with Tort Insurer for Less Than Policy Limits
Court Finds Insurer Not Bound in Tort Action By Positions It Took in SABS Dispute
In Anand v. Belanger, Justice David Stinson considered whether State Farm Insurance, which had been sued in this case by virtue of its uninsured motorist coverage, was bound by admissions that it had made about the plaintiff’s condition in its … Continue reading
Posted in Auto, Insurance News
Comments Off on Court Finds Insurer Not Bound in Tort Action By Positions It Took in SABS Dispute
Tort Insurer Can’t Call AB Doctors as Experts
In an important new decision, Mr. Justice J. Patrick Moore has refused to allow the defendant in a personal injury action to adduce expert testimony from three physicians who examined the plaintiff in connection with a claim for statutory accident … Continue reading
Posted in Auto, Evidence, Insurance News, Trial Procedure
Comments Off on Tort Insurer Can’t Call AB Doctors as Experts
Bill 198 a “Codification” of Meyer v. Bright, says Ferguson J.
In Hayden v. Stevenson, Madam Justice Jane E. Ferguson of the Ontario Superior Court held that the Bill 198 amendments to the Insurance Act are a “codification of existing law” and in doing so, sided with Madam Justice Morissette in Nissan v. … Continue reading
Posted in Auto, Insurance News, Threshold
Comments Off on Bill 198 a “Codification” of Meyer v. Bright, says Ferguson J.
C.A. Says Plaintiffs Claiming Under Uninsured Motorist Coverage Need Not Pursue Insured Potential Joint Tortfeasors
Ontario auto insurers received some bad news last week from the Court of Appeal . In Loftus v. Security National Insurance Company, the Court upheld the ruling of Mr. Justice Barry MacDougall, which we reported on a little over a year ago. … Continue reading
Posted in Auto, Insurance News, Uninsured or Underinsured
Comments Off on C.A. Says Plaintiffs Claiming Under Uninsured Motorist Coverage Need Not Pursue Insured Potential Joint Tortfeasors
“Minimal Financial Risk” to Law Firm in Prosecuting AB Claim in Catastrophic Case, So Substantial Fee Premium Not Appropriate
In Adler v. State Farm Automobile Insurance Company, Madam Justice Nancy Spies dealt with an application by the law firm of Aylesworth LLP for court approval of lawyer-client fees and disbursements, to be paid out of the proceeds of the settlement … Continue reading
Posted in Auto, Costs, Insurance News, Lawyers
Comments Off on “Minimal Financial Risk” to Law Firm in Prosecuting AB Claim in Catastrophic Case, So Substantial Fee Premium Not Appropriate
C.A. Clarifies Requirements for Non-earner Benefits
It was apparent from its ruling yesterday in Heath v. Economical Mutual Insurance Company, that the Court of Appeal was not very impressed with the trial decision of Mr. Justice John C. Kennedy. The plaintiff had been involved in a rear-end … Continue reading
Posted in Auto, Collateral Benefits, Insurance News
Comments Off on C.A. Clarifies Requirements for Non-earner Benefits
Judge Says Bill 198 Threshold Aimed at Tightening Up the Insurance Act Threshold “By Reducing the Number of Litigants Able to Sue”
About a year ago, Justice Johanne Morissette’s decision in Nissan v. McNamee was released. Her Honour concluded that the Bill 198 version of the Insurance Act threshold in MVA cases had not effected much of a change from the previous regime. … Continue reading
Posted in Auto, Insurance News, Threshold
Comments Off on Judge Says Bill 198 Threshold Aimed at Tightening Up the Insurance Act Threshold “By Reducing the Number of Litigants Able to Sue”
Threshold Decision Underlines Dichotomy Within Ontario Insurance Act
The Ontario legislature has chosen to confer upon judges (alone) the right to decide whether or not a plaintiff in an MVA action meets the statutory “threshold”, making him or her eligible to receive an award of non-pecuniary general damages. … Continue reading
Posted in Auto (Tort), Insurance News, Juries, Threshold
Comments Off on Threshold Decision Underlines Dichotomy Within Ontario Insurance Act
Judge Says Bill 198 Meant to “Tighten Up” IA Threshold
Sherman v. Guckelsberger was released on December 29, but Ontario auto insurers can be forgiven for thinking that it was meant to have arrived four days earlier. In this case, Madam Justice Jane A. Milanetti had to decide whether or … Continue reading