-
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: CGL
C.A. Rejects Insurer’s Interpretation of “Anti-concurrent causation” clause
Addendum: On July 31, 2008, the Supreme Court of Canada refused leave to appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal that was discussed in this post. In Appin Realty Corporation Limited v. Economical Mutual Insurance Company, the Court … Continue reading
Posted in CGL, Duty to Defend, Exclusions, Insurance News
Comments Off on C.A. Rejects Insurer’s Interpretation of “Anti-concurrent causation” clause
Court Applies Derksen to Order Defence by Both CGL and Auto Policies
In Derksen v. 539938 Ontario Limited, the Supreme Court of Canada ordered both an auto and a CGL insurer to defend a personal injury action. It determined that there had been concurrent causes of the injuries, one covered by the … Continue reading
Posted in Auto, CGL, Duty to Defend, Insurance News
Comments Off on Court Applies Derksen to Order Defence by Both CGL and Auto Policies
CGL Exclusions Held Not to Apply
AXA Insurance (Canada) v. Ani-Wall Concrete Forming Inc. involved the familiar “your work”, “your product” and “rip and tear” exclusions in a CGL policy. A concrete forming contractor, Ani-Wall Concrete Forming, was alleged to have used defective concrete in constructing … Continue reading
Posted in CGL, Exclusions, Insurance News
Comments Off on CGL Exclusions Held Not to Apply
Duty to Defend Held to Exist, Despite “Anti-Concurrent Causation” Clause in Policy
Decision of Justice Kershman dated Aug 10, 2007.pdf Our office acted for the insured in what is, so far as we can determine, the first decision to consider whether a duty to defend was owed by an insurer whose policy … Continue reading
Posted in CGL, Exclusions, Insurance News
Comments Off on Duty to Defend Held to Exist, Despite “Anti-Concurrent Causation” Clause in Policy
Insurer Owes No Duty to Defend Additional Named Insured When It is Already Defending Named Insured
Madam Justice Nancy M. Mossip has refused to order an insurer to undertake, in whole or in part, the defence of an additional named insured. She reasoned that since the insurer was already defending its named insured, there was no … Continue reading
Posted in CGL
Comments Off on Insurer Owes No Duty to Defend Additional Named Insured When It is Already Defending Named Insured
C.A. Says Relief from Forfeiture only Available for Post-loss Events
In Williams v. York Fire & Casualty Insurance Company, released today by the Court of Appeal, the court was dealing with a fact situation that often comes up. A driver was involved in an accident. When the accident occurred, the … Continue reading
Posted in Auto, Exclusions, Insurance News
Comments Off on C.A. Says Relief from Forfeiture only Available for Post-loss Events
Voids in Soil Held to be “Property Damage”, Resulting in CGL Coverage
Madam Justice Janet Wilson of the Ontario Superior Court has released a significant decision in the interpretation of commercial general liability insurance policies. In York Region Condominium Corporation No. 772 v. Lombard Canada, she rejected coverage arguments raised by Lombard … Continue reading
Posted in CGL, Insurance News
Comments Off on Voids in Soil Held to be “Property Damage”, Resulting in CGL Coverage
Negligent Placement of Ladder on Roof of Truck Excluded Under CGL
In Cumis General Insurance Company v. 1319273 Ontario Ltd., Mr. Justice David Brown dealt with an interesting coverage dispute. Cumis had applied for a ruling on whether it owed a duty to defend its insured, the numbered company, in an … Continue reading
Posted in CGL, Duty to Defend, Exclusions, Insurance News
Comments Off on Negligent Placement of Ladder on Roof of Truck Excluded Under CGL
Late Notice of U.S. Trademark Infringement Claim Means No Insurance Coverage for Related Claim in Canada
Mr. Justice Roydon J. Kealey of the Superior Court has granted summary judgment, dismissing the plaintiff’s action in Ideal Roofing Company v. Royal & SunAlliance Insurance Company. Our office acted for Royal, the successful moving party. The basis of the … Continue reading
Posted in Advertising Injury, CGL, Exclusions, Insurance News
Comments Off on Late Notice of U.S. Trademark Infringement Claim Means No Insurance Coverage for Related Claim in Canada
1991 Installation of Fireplace Held to be ‘Accident’ Triggering Coverage for 2003 Fire Claim
[This post contains a correction at the end, dealing with the apportionment of contributions between the two policies. We had previously said that contribution by equal shares had been ordered; in fact, Power J. ordered proportionate contribution by policy … Continue reading
Posted in CGL, Duty to Defend, Insurance News
Comments Off on 1991 Installation of Fireplace Held to be ‘Accident’ Triggering Coverage for 2003 Fire Claim