Category Archives: Insurance News

Catch-all category for developments in the law of insurance.

New “duty to defend” decision good news for additional insureds

Justice Carole J. Brown’s decision in Dufferin Construction v The Dominion of Canada, 2015 ONSC 6311 (CanLII) deals with a situation very commonly seen in additional insured/duty to defend cases: the insurer denies coverage to the additional insured, relying on a … Continue reading

Posted in CGL, Duty to Defend, Insurance News | Comments Off on New “duty to defend” decision good news for additional insureds

Covenant to insure bars misrepresentation suit by commercial tenant

D.L.G. & Associates Ltd. v. Minto Properties Inc., 2014 ONSC 7287 (CanLII), a decision of Justice Paul Perell, raises some questions as to how far-reaching are the effects of a covenant to insure between landlord and tenant. Justice Perell considered … Continue reading

Posted in Insurance News, Uncategorized | Comments Off on Covenant to insure bars misrepresentation suit by commercial tenant

Duty to indemnify sometimes broader than duty to defend?

Mr. Justice Timothy D. Ray just released a decision that is something of an anomaly: he ruled that a liability insurer did not owe a duty to defend two individuals who had been sued for defamation. But he acknowledged that … Continue reading

Posted in CGL, Duty to Defend, Insurance News | Comments Off on Duty to indemnify sometimes broader than duty to defend?

Contractual Risk Transfer: A Review of Recent Authorities on Additional Insured Endorsements, Covenants to Insure and Subrogation Bars

NOTE: The decision of Justice Morgan in Sanofi Pasteur Limited v. UPS SCS, Inc. et al., 2014 ONSC 2695 (CanLII), discussed in this post, was upheld in the Court of Appeal: 2015 ONCA 88 (CanLII). Also, the decision of Justice Metivier … Continue reading

Posted in CGL, Risk Transfer | Comments Off on Contractual Risk Transfer: A Review of Recent Authorities on Additional Insured Endorsements, Covenants to Insure and Subrogation Bars

Divisional Court Splits on Whether MVA Plaintiff Can Provide Corroborative Evidence of “Change in Function”

In Gyorffy v. Drury, 2013 ONSC 1929 (CanLII), the majority of a Divisional Court panel held that on a “threshold motion” under the Insurance Act, the injured plaintiff can, himself or herself, provide the corroborative evidence required by s. 4.3(5) of Reg. … Continue reading

Posted in Auto, Insurance News, Threshold | Comments Off on Divisional Court Splits on Whether MVA Plaintiff Can Provide Corroborative Evidence of “Change in Function”

C.A. Upholds Contractual Incorporation of One-Year Limitation Period Into Property Insurance Policy

In Boyce v. The Co-operators General Insurance Company, 2013 ONCA 298, the Court of Appeal has reversed the decision of Mr. Justice Michael Quigley, a ruling that I discussed in a comment last year. The Court of Appeal held that Justice Quigley had … Continue reading

Posted in Fire Insurance, Insurance News, Limitation Periods | Comments Off on C.A. Upholds Contractual Incorporation of One-Year Limitation Period Into Property Insurance Policy

C.A. Penalizes Insurer For Refusing to Mediate

In Williston v. Hamilton (Police Service), 2013 ONCA 296, the Court of Appeal considered whether to make an “augmented award of costs” on the basis that the defendant, the City of Hamilton, had refused requests to engage in mediation pursuant to … Continue reading

Posted in Auto, Costs | Comments Off on C.A. Penalizes Insurer For Refusing to Mediate

Recent “Additional Insured” Cases Take Differing Approaches to Allocation of Defence Costs

Georgian Downs Limited v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, 2013 ONSC 2110 (CanLII) is a recent decision on the subject of additional insureds, about which I have written in earlier posts. (See particularly here.) The decision of Justice Gregory … Continue reading

Posted in Allocation of Defence Costs, CGL, Duty to Defend, Insurance News | Comments Off on Recent “Additional Insured” Cases Take Differing Approaches to Allocation of Defence Costs

C.A. Says Statutory Conditions Don’t Apply to Uninsured Auto Coverage

Last Friday, the Court of Appeal ruled that the statutory conditions in a standard automobile policy do not apply to the uninsured automobile coverage that is mandated by s. 265 of the Insurance Act. In Bruinsma v. Cresswell, the plaintiff was … Continue reading

Posted in Auto, Insurance News, Uninsured or Underinsured | Comments Off on C.A. Says Statutory Conditions Don’t Apply to Uninsured Auto Coverage

Superior Court Judge Strikes Down Limitation Period in Underinsured Endorsement

Schmitz v Lombard In a recent decision, Mr. Justice Martin James of the Superior Court has ruled that the limitation period contained in s. 17 of the underinsured automobile endorsement, OPCF 44R “cannot operate as a limitation defence and that … Continue reading

Posted in Auto, Discoverability, Insurance News, Limitation Periods | Comments Off on Superior Court Judge Strikes Down Limitation Period in Underinsured Endorsement