|
Having trouble reading this email? You can view it in your web browser |
 |
|||
|
 |
 |
|
 |
|||
|
About this newsletterThe Harper Grey LLP Insurance Law Update provides a monthly review of new cases and emerging issues in Canadian insurance law. These summaries are not legal opinions. Readers should not act on the basis of these summaries without first consulting a lawyer for analysis and advice on a specific matter. |
||
Homeowner's InsurancePolicies and Insurance Contracts - Interpretation of Policy - You and Your”, Definition - Unnamed Insured; Subrogation - Right of Insurer to Subrogation - Insurer Against, Insured Rochon v. Rochon, 2014 ONSC 2337, [2014] O.J. No. 1813 The defendant’s negligent motor vehicle maintenance led to a fire and damage to the plaintiffs’ garage. The defendant was the plaintiffs’ son and an unnamed insured on their home owner's insurance policy. The plaintiffs’ insurer sued to subrogate and claim against the defendant’s motor vehicle insurance. The court concluded that because the defendant was an unnamed insured under the policy and because the definition of insured under the portion of the policy covering fire loss included the defendant, the insurer was not entitled to sue its own insured for losses paid out, despite the insured’s negligence. |
|||
Commercial General Liability InsuranceInterpretation of policy - Duty to defend - Exclusions Intact Insurance Co. v. Virdi, 2014 ONSC 2322, [2014] O.J. No. 1748 The insurer brought an application seeking a declaration that there was no possibility a claim for bodily injuries was covered under its insured’s policy. The court granted the declaration on the basis that the policy’s declaration page clearly indicated that insurance was issued for the business operations described on the declaration page to the policy. The injuries related to an accident involving the delivery of lathes, which the court found were completely unrelated to the insured’s stated business operations at the property and the injuries were therefore not covered under the policy. In addition, the mere fact the insured’s employees may have assisted in the delivery of the lathes was not sufficient to give rise to a claim under the policy. |
|||
Automobile InsuranceStatutory Provisions - Liability Insurance — Motor Vehicle Accidents — Practice — Releases Niedermeyer v. Charlton, 2014 BCCA 165, [2014] B.C.J. No. 763 A release signed by a plaintiff participating in a zip line activity did not defeat the plaintiff's claim for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle collision on the defendant zip line operator's bus travelling from the zipline area. The release was contrary to public policy, which did not allow an owner/operator of a motor vehicle to contract out of liability for damages for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. |
|||
All-Risk InsuranceProperty Insurance - Bailment - Interpretation of Policy - Covenant to Insure - Derivative Claims Sanofi Pasteur Ltd. v. UPS SCS, Inc., 2014 ONSC 2695, [2014] O.J. No. 2076 A plaintiff’s covenant to insure the defendant signifies the assumption of risk of damage for which it sues. This covenant barred the plaintiff’s insurer from bringing a subrogated claim against the covenantee defendant for the damage. Notwithstanding a lack of contractual privity, the covenant also barred the plaintiff from bringing a subrogated claim against the other defendants on the basis that the plaintiff's claim was derivative of the same incident and the same damage as the claim against the covenantee. |
|||
|
Would you like us to cover a specific insurance law topic in a future issue of this newsletter? Please feel free to email me with your suggestions. Thank you, |
||
|