Category Archives: Auto

Cases dealing with auto insurance, personal injuries (MVA-related), accident benefits.

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. 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

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

C.A. Says Conviction for Careless Driving Doesn’t Allow Auto Insurer to Deny Coverage On the Basis of Intentional Act

In Savage v. Belecque, released last week, the Court of Appeal considered whether Allstate Insurance had been justified in denying coverage to a young driver and to his mother, the owner of the car, on the basis that the act … Continue reading

Posted in Auto, Costs, Duty to Defend | Comments Off on C.A. Says Conviction for Careless Driving Doesn’t Allow Auto Insurer to Deny Coverage On the Basis of Intentional Act

C.A. Rules Definitively On Limitation Period for Claim Under Underinsured Endorsement

In Roque v. Pilot Insurance Company, 2012 ONCA 311 (CanLII), the Court of Appeal dispelled any doubt about when the limitation period commences to run for a claim against an insurer that provides underinsured motorist coverage. It agreed with Master Ronald … Continue reading

Posted in Auto, Discoverability, Insurance News, Limitation Periods | Comments Off on C.A. Rules Definitively On Limitation Period for Claim Under Underinsured Endorsement

A Time To Every Purpose Under Heaven

The calculation of periods of time specified in statutes, rules and contracts is a continuing source of anxiety for lawyers. Filing a document one day late can have dire consequences. But figuring out just what is one day late is … Continue reading

Posted in Auto, Insurance News | Comments Off on A Time To Every Purpose Under Heaven

C.A. Says Bad Faith Action Against Auto Insurer Not Subject to Limitation Period in Policy

The Court of Appeal’s decision in Dundas v. Zurich Canada, 2012 ONCA 181, is interesting for a couple of reasons: liability of an insurer for failing to pay its policy limits into an interest-bearing account and the limitation period that … Continue reading

Posted in Auto, Discoverability, Insurance News, Limitation Periods | Comments Off on C.A. Says Bad Faith Action Against Auto Insurer Not Subject to Limitation Period in Policy

Master Pope Refuses To Add Insurer in OPCF-44R Claim

Vogler v. Lemieux, 2012 ONSC 1692 is an interesting case and, to me, a bit puzzling. I am hoping that one of the readers of this blog can clear things up for me. The plaintiff was injured in a single … Continue reading

Posted in Auto, Uninsured or Underinsured | Comments Off on Master Pope Refuses To Add Insurer in OPCF-44R Claim

Superior Court Refuses to Dismiss Accident Benefits Lawsuits, Despite Mediation Not Having Taken Place

Last week, Mr. Justice James W. Sloan delivered a ruling in four cases that will have an impact on statutory accident benefits litigation. The cases are: Cornie v. Security National, Hurst v. Aviva Insurance Company, Singh v. Aviva Insurance Company and … Continue reading

Posted in Auto | Comments Off on Superior Court Refuses to Dismiss Accident Benefits Lawsuits, Despite Mediation Not Having Taken Place