Print This PageNew Insurance Coverage Cases
1. 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).
2. 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).
3. 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).
4. 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)..
5. 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).
6. 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).
7. 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).
8. Court excuses policyholder's failure to file a proof of loss within one year of date of loss, and allows the policyholder's claim under a homeowner's policy: Nassim v. Perth Insurance Co. (August 27, 2009 Nova Scotia Supreme Court).
9. Insurer is held liable to pay uninsured automobile coverage to policyholder, even though policyholder failed to sue municipality and police as joint tortfeasors within the applicable limitation period: Loftus v. Security National Insurance Co. (August 21, 2009 Ontario Court of Appeal).
10. Court dismisses policyholder's claim for automobile coverage where the driver was operating the vehicle with a suspended driver's licence: Peace Hills General Insurance Co. v. Terrigno (August 21, 2009 Alberta Provincial Court).
|
| |||
| |||
|
