Print This PageNew Insurance Coverage Cases
1. The standard owned property exclusion in a homeowner's policy only applies to homes currently owned by the insured, and does not apply to homes which used to be owned by the insured: McGrimmon v. The Personal Insurance Company (October 6, 2010 Ontario Court of Appeal).
2. Supreme Court of Canada applies Bridgewood Building Corp. (Riverfield) v. Lombard in holding that Lombard had a duty to defend faulty construction claims in British Columbia: Progressive Homes Ltd. v. Lombard General Insurance Co. of Canada (Sept. 23, 2010 Supreme Court of Canada).
3. Court holds that CGL pollution exclusion does not apply to escape of gasoline from a gas station. The court relied on the reasoning in Zurich Insurance Co. v. 686234 Ontario Ltd. (2002 Ont. C.A.) in holding that the exclusion only applied to industrial polluters, and that the gas station did was not an industrial polluter. (The court also held that the insurer did not waive its right to rely on the exclusion by defending the claim without a reservation of rights letter, and that there was no estoppel.) ING Insurance Co. v. Miracle (Sept. 13, 2010 Ontario Superior Court).
4. Court holds that exception to watercraft exclusion in homeowner's policy did not restore coverage for a motorboat with a 175 hp inboard engine. The exclusion applied and the insurer had no duty to defend: Woodbury v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. (August 27, 2010 Ontario Superior Court).
5. Court considered whether Lombard Insurance had a duty to defend a landlord that was added as an additional insured under a snow removal contractor's liability policy. The policy covered the additional insured, "but only with respect to liability arising out of the operations of the [snow removal contractor]". The court rejected Lombard's argument that there was no duty to defend because there were mixed allegations (one of which had nothing to do with the snow removal contractor's operations), and held that there was a duty to defend. Cadillac Fairview Corporation v. Oakridge Landscape Contractors and Lombard Canada (August 17, 2010, Ontario Superior Court of Justice).
6. Ontario Court of Appeal rules that pedestrian was "hit by" or "struck by" an uninsured automobile where plaintiff walked into a stationary vehicle, and that the uninsured motorist coverage accordingly applied. Lewis v. Economical Insurance Group (July 26, 2010 Ontario Court of Appeal).
7. Court allowed directors’ claims for defence costs against D&O insurer and considered interaction of a commercial D&O policy and an Outside Directors’ Liability policy: Goodman v. AIG Commercial Ins. Co. (June 2, 2010 Ontario Court of Appeal)..
8. Court of Appeal declines to follow recent Glassford and Hawke decisions, and holds there is no duty under a homeowner's policy to defend an assault claim, even if the insured pleads self-defence: Meadows v. Meloche Monnex Insurance Brokers Inc. (June 2, 2010 Ontario Court of Appeal).
9. Court held that plaintiff was entitled to maintain underinsured auto claim under OPCF 44R endorsement, even though plaintiff settled with the tortfeasor for less than the tortfeasor's policy limit of $15,000: Petrasso v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. (May 26, 2010 Ontario Superior Court of Justice).
10. Court interpreted ambiguity against D&O insurer and held that D&O insurer was required to pay 90% of insured's defence costs under a defence cost allocation endorsement: Dunn v. Chubb Insurance Co. of Canada (April 23, 2010 Ontario Superior Court of Justice).
|
| |||
| |||
|
