-
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
Corrigendum on Branco Case
We have learned that yesterday’s Update on Branco v. Allianz erroneously referred to Allianz as the defendant. In fact, we now understand that Allianz was the AB carrier and although it had been a defendant originally, it was out of … Continue reading
Posted in Auto, Insurance News
Comments Off on Corrigendum on Branco Case
Plaintiffs Get Damages of $750, Costs of $21,000
This case, released today, is a bit of a head-scratcher.In Branco v. Allianz Insurance, the plaintiffs were claiming damages as a result of personal injuries suffered in a motor vehicle accident. The trial lasted eight days before Justice Siegel and … Continue reading
Posted in Auto, Costs, Damages, Insurance News, Threshold
Comments Off on Plaintiffs Get Damages of $750, Costs of $21,000
C.A. Interprets “Other Insurance” Clause to Make Auto Policy Primary
The Court of Appeal today released an interesting decision, dealing with the interaction of three policies: auto, boat and homeowner’s. In Axa Insurance v. Dominion of Canada (the reasons can be viewed at http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2004/november/C40387.htm), the underlying litigation arose from a … Continue reading
Posted in Auto, Insurance News
Comments Off on C.A. Interprets “Other Insurance” Clause to Make Auto Policy Primary
Important “Crumbling Skull” and Threshold Decision
In a decision handed down yesterday, Ottawa judge Madam Justice Giovanna Toscana Roccamo awarded damages of more than $700,000 to two chronic pain plaintiffs. The case is Hartwick v. Simser. The 63 page decision of Madam Justice Toscana Roccamo will be … Continue reading
Posted in Auto, Auto (Tort), Damages, Insurance News, Threshold
Comments Off on Important “Crumbling Skull” and Threshold Decision
SABS Insurer Examination Doesn’t Preclude IME
Ottawa Case Management Master Robert Beaudoin recently clarified the law relating to the effect that an insurer examination under the SABS has on the right to an IME under s. 105 of the Courts of Justice Act .In La Forest … Continue reading
Posted in Auto, Discovery, Insurance News
Comments Off on SABS Insurer Examination Doesn’t Preclude IME
Employer/Owners No Longer “Protected Defendants”?
Happy Canada Day à tout le monde!We wish we could be the bearers of more cheerful news on this festive day. In an important decision, a judge of the Superior Court has just ruled that the Insurance Act does not … Continue reading
Posted in Auto, Insurance News, Threshold
Comments Off on Employer/Owners No Longer “Protected Defendants”?
SABS Must Be Repaid Before Settlement Can Be Rescinded
A Superior Court decision released today has confirmed that an insured seeking an order setting aside a settlement of accident benefits must first repay money paid pursuant to the settlement. In Lindsay v. Martin, the text of which can be … Continue reading
Posted in Auto, Insurance News
Comments Off on SABS Must Be Repaid Before Settlement Can Be Rescinded
Reasons for Rejecting Treatment Plan Need Not Be Detailed
In Pereira v. Coseco Insurance, released last month, an Ontario Superior Court judge stayed the insured’s lawsuit pending her attended for a DAC assessment. The reasons for judgment can be viewed at http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/onsc/2004/2004onsc11180.html The claim related to med-rehab benefits. The … Continue reading
Posted in Auto, Insurance News
Comments Off on Reasons for Rejecting Treatment Plan Need Not Be Detailed
Auto Deductible to be Taken Into Account for Rule 49 Offers
In its May 11, 2004 decision in Wicken v. Harssar, the Divisional Court has clarified s. 267.5(9) of the Insurance Act. That section of the Act deals with the effect of the deductibles on costs. It provides that “In an … Continue reading
Posted in Auto, Insurance News, Practice and Procedure
Comments Off on Auto Deductible to be Taken Into Account for Rule 49 Offers
Insurer Must reimburse MVAC Fund for Accident Benefits
In Kalinkine v. Superintendent of Financial Services Commission, a Superior Court decision released this week, The Personal Insurance Company was ordered to reimburse the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund for accident benefits payments paid in error by the Fund. We … Continue reading
Posted in Auto, Collateral Benefits, Insurance News
Comments Off on Insurer Must reimburse MVAC Fund for Accident Benefits