Print This PageNew Insurance Defence Cases
1. Court of Appeal awarded increased costs to plaintiff after trial in auto claim, where the defendant's insurer had taken the position that the claim did not pass the threshold and had refused to participate in the mandatory mediation required by s. 258.6(2) of the Insurance Act. The costs awarded were higher than partial indemnity, but less than substantial indemnity: Keam v. Caddey (Aug. 31, 2010 Ontario Court of Appeal).
2. Court dismisses defendant's counterclaim against the elderly plaintiff's children in a motor vehicle accident claim. The court held that a child has no duty in law to supervise or impose unwanted assessments upon an aging parent who is living independently: Morrison v. Hooper (August 12, 2010 Ontario Superior Court).
3. Ontario Court of Appeal rules on discoverability principle in a slip and fall claim:
- (a) The discoverability rule did not apply in the claim against the landowner, as it was possible to do a simple title search to learn of the landowner's identity. This claim was barred.
- (b) The discoverability rule did apply to extend the limitation period in the claim against the snow removal contractor. The limitation period did not commence in this case until the plaintiff's lawyer received a letter from the defendant's insurer, advising of the identity of the snow removal contractor. This claim was allowed to proceed.
Safai v. Bruce N. Huntley Contracting Ltd. (August 6, 2010 Ontario Court of Appeal)
4. Court rules that non-settling defendants are entitled to production of Pierringer settlement agreement between plaintiffs and settling defendants: Noonan v. Alpha-Vico (June 29, 2010 Ontario Superior Court).
5. The limitation period for an automobile accident in Ontario does not start to run until the plaintiff knew or ought to have known that the value of the injuries surpassed the monetary deductible set out in the Insurance Act: Everding v. Skrijel (June 16, 2010 Ontario Court of Appeal).
6. The court considered whether a lease provision requiring a tenant to remove ice and snow from stairs was available as a defence to a slip and fall action against the landlord, or whether it was contrary to the Residential Tenancies Act. The court held that the provision was contrary to the Act in this case, but also commented that in some circumstances such provisions will be enforceable. Montgomery v. Van (November 11, 2009 Ontario Court of Appeal).
7. Court held that disclosure of amount of prior MVA settlement was not relevant to assessment of damages in subsequent slip and fall action: Anderson v. Cara Operations Ltd. (October 27, 2009 Ontario Superior Court of Justice).
8. Discussion of litigation privilege in context of production of documents created during an insurer's claim investigation, but prior to actual litigation: Kavanagh v. Peel Mutual Insurance Company (October 20, 2009 Ontario Superior Court of Justice).
9. Court held that since tenant paid towards landlord's fire insurance, it received the benefit of the landlord's insurance coverage, who was precluded from bringing a claim against the tenant: 1044589 Ontario Inc. (c.o.b. Nantucket Business Centre) v. AB Autorama Ltd. (September 16, 2009, Court of Appeal for Ontario).
|
| |||
| |||
|
