The Court of Appeal has just released an important decision that will be of interest to those handling MVA claims. In Igbokwe v. Price, the court ruled that the trial judge’s finding, that the plaintiff’s injuries met the Insurance Act threshold, was not a finding that the accident had caused the injuries.
You may recall that this is a question that we have wondered about in previous editions of the CW Update. Continue reading
The Divisional Court’s decision in Frankfurter v. Gibbons, which was the subject of an earlier Update, has already been applied in an Ontario Superior Court trial decision. In Bridgewater v. James, Mr. Justice Herman J. Wilton-Siegel cited the Frankfurter decision in granting a threshold motion that was heard while the jury was deliberating in a chronic pain case. Continue reading
In Hunter v. Economical Insurance Group, Mr. Justice Robert MacKinnon of the Ontario Superior Court has ruled that an excluded driver endorsement was not ambiguous and that even though the accident occurred three years after the endorsement was issued, the insurer had no obligation to warn the insured that the endorsement was still in force. Continue reading
Happy New Year to all of our subscribers.
We are pleased to tell you that you are now able to view our previous Updates at our website:
We are attaching a copy of the costs decision in Hartwick v. Simser. (You may recall that we discussed this decision in an earlier Update.) The ruling on costs is very favourable for defendants because it addresses several of the same issues that arose in Power J.’s ruling in Russett v. Bujold. The decision of Madam Justice Toscano Roccamo, in Hartwick, takes a much more conservative approach to costs than that in Russett. Continue reading
In a decision that was good news for insurers, the Ontario Divisional Court has reversed the finding of Superior Court Justice Wilton-Siegel, that injuries suffered in a 1999 MVA met the threshold under s. 267.5(5) of the Insurance Act .
In Frankfurter v. Gibbons, the plaintiff had been injured in parking lot collision at a gas station. The defendant’s car had backed into hers. At trial, she had these complaints: Continue reading
There will soon be some significant changes to the way that BI damages are assessed in MVA cases. In this edition of our Update, we will try to assist you in applying these new principles. Continue reading
The case of Meadowview Heights Ltd. v. Revivo raises some issues reminiscent of our undergraduate philosophy course in “Personal Identity”. But on a more prosaic level, the case is a useful interpreation of the exclusion, found in both homeowner’s and CGL policies, for “ownership, use or operation of an automobile” (or, in this case, a “motorized land vehicle”). Because of this “crossover”, the decision is being sent to subscribers to our “BI” list and our “CGL” list. Our apologies to those who, by virtue of being on both lists, receive two copies of the mailing. Continue reading
Royal & SunAlliance v. Lombard and Allianz is a Divisional Court decision from last month that slipped by us. It’s of some interest, so better late than never…
RSA is suing Allianz for reimbursement for the amount paid to settle a claim that Allianz had refused to defend. The issue in the case will be whether the claim that RSA settled was within the coverage of Allianz’ CGL or Director’s Liability policies.
RSA sought production of Allianz’ underwriting file. Initially, the Master refused to order production. On appeal to Madam Justice Gertrude Speigel, the appeal was allowed and Allianz was ordered to produce the underwriting file. The basis of the latter decision was that the file “could be relevant” to issues in the action brought by RSA. Continue reading
Nothing earth-shattering about Goodliff v. Woodcock, but it is the latest case to deal with “accidental fires”.
Usually, it’s the landlord’s insurer suing the tenant (and running into the body of caselaw where implied waivers of subrogation have frequently been found). Here, the situation was a little different. The tenant was uninsured and she sued her landlord for damage done to her contents in a fire that destroyed the landlord’s building. Continue reading
In Desbiens v. Mordini, Mr. Justice Harvey Spiegel has written a very lengthy, comprehensive set of reasons in a personal injury case in which one of the key issues was the interpretation of “catastrophic impairment” in Regulation 461/96 of the Insurance Act . (You can access the text of the decision by clicking on the case name in the first line of this paragraph.)
The case involved a plaintiff who, when he was injured in a 1999 MVA, was already a paraplegic as a result of a 1986 accident on the job. The principal injuries suffered in the 1999 MVA were a fractured right femur and soft tissue injuries. Continue reading