-
Recent Posts
Archives
- October 2015
- July 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- May 2014
- January 2014
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- November 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- September 2011
- May 2011
- February 2011
- October 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- November 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- November 2008
- October 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
- April 2005
- March 2005
- January 2005
- December 2004
- November 2004
- October 2004
- September 2004
- July 2004
- June 2004
- May 2004
- April 2004
- March 2004
- December 2003
- November 2003
- May 2003
- April 2003
Categories
- Advertising Injury
- Allocation of Defence Costs
- Appeals
- Auto
- Auto (Tort)
- CGL
- Collateral Benefits
- Commercial Litigation
- Conflict of Laws
- Contract
- Costs
- Damages
- Defamation
- Discoverability
- Discovery
- Duty to Defend
- Environmental
- Evidence
- Exclusions
- Experts and Opinions
- Fire Insurance
- Fires
- FLA
- Insurance News
- Juries
- Lawyers
- Limitation Periods
- Litigation Technology
- Municipalities
- Occupier's Liability
- Pleadings
- Practice and Procedure
- Practice of Law
- Privacy
- Privilege
- Products Liability
- Professional Liability
- Risk Transfer
- Sale of Goods
- Social and Commercial Host Liability
- Subrogation
- Threshold
- Tort News
- Trial Procedure
- Uncategorized
- Uninsured or Underinsured
- Waivers and releases
Meta
Category Archives: Insurance News
New “duty to defend” decision good news for additional insureds
Justice Carole J. Brown’s decision in Dufferin Construction v The Dominion of Canada, 2015 ONSC 6311 (CanLII) deals with a situation very commonly seen in additional insured/duty to defend cases: the insurer denies coverage to the additional insured, relying on a … Continue reading
Posted in CGL, Duty to Defend, Insurance News
Comments Off on New “duty to defend” decision good news for additional insureds
Covenant to insure bars misrepresentation suit by commercial tenant
D.L.G. & Associates Ltd. v. Minto Properties Inc., 2014 ONSC 7287 (CanLII), a decision of Justice Paul Perell, raises some questions as to how far-reaching are the effects of a covenant to insure between landlord and tenant. Justice Perell considered … Continue reading
Posted in Insurance News, Uncategorized
Comments Off on Covenant to insure bars misrepresentation suit by commercial tenant
Duty to indemnify sometimes broader than duty to defend?
Mr. Justice Timothy D. Ray just released a decision that is something of an anomaly: he ruled that a liability insurer did not owe a duty to defend two individuals who had been sued for defamation. But he acknowledged that … Continue reading
Posted in CGL, Duty to Defend, Insurance News
Comments Off on Duty to indemnify sometimes broader than duty to defend?
Contractual Risk Transfer: A Review of Recent Authorities on Additional Insured Endorsements, Covenants to Insure and Subrogation Bars
NOTE: The decision of Justice Morgan in Sanofi Pasteur Limited v. UPS SCS, Inc. et al., 2014 ONSC 2695 (CanLII), discussed in this post, was upheld in the Court of Appeal: 2015 ONCA 88 (CanLII). Also, the decision of Justice Metivier … Continue reading
Posted in CGL, Risk Transfer
Comments Off on Contractual Risk Transfer: A Review of Recent Authorities on Additional Insured Endorsements, Covenants to Insure and Subrogation Bars
Divisional Court Splits on Whether MVA Plaintiff Can Provide Corroborative Evidence of “Change in Function”
In Gyorffy v. Drury, 2013 ONSC 1929 (CanLII), the majority of a Divisional Court panel held that on a “threshold motion” under the Insurance Act, the injured plaintiff can, himself or herself, provide the corroborative evidence required by s. 4.3(5) of Reg. … Continue reading
Posted in Auto, Insurance News, Threshold
Comments Off on Divisional Court Splits on Whether MVA Plaintiff Can Provide Corroborative Evidence of “Change in Function”
C.A. Upholds Contractual Incorporation of One-Year Limitation Period Into Property Insurance Policy
In Boyce v. The Co-operators General Insurance Company, 2013 ONCA 298, the Court of Appeal has reversed the decision of Mr. Justice Michael Quigley, a ruling that I discussed in a comment last year. The Court of Appeal held that Justice Quigley had … Continue reading
Posted in Fire Insurance, Insurance News, Limitation Periods
Comments Off on C.A. Upholds Contractual Incorporation of One-Year Limitation Period Into Property Insurance Policy
C.A. Penalizes Insurer For Refusing to Mediate
In Williston v. Hamilton (Police Service), 2013 ONCA 296, the Court of Appeal considered whether to make an “augmented award of costs” on the basis that the defendant, the City of Hamilton, had refused requests to engage in mediation pursuant to … Continue reading
Recent “Additional Insured” Cases Take Differing Approaches to Allocation of Defence Costs
Georgian Downs Limited v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, 2013 ONSC 2110 (CanLII) is a recent decision on the subject of additional insureds, about which I have written in earlier posts. (See particularly here.) The decision of Justice Gregory … Continue reading
Posted in Allocation of Defence Costs, CGL, Duty to Defend, Insurance News
Comments Off on Recent “Additional Insured” Cases Take Differing Approaches to Allocation of Defence Costs
C.A. Says Statutory Conditions Don’t Apply to Uninsured Auto Coverage
Last Friday, the Court of Appeal ruled that the statutory conditions in a standard automobile policy do not apply to the uninsured automobile coverage that is mandated by s. 265 of the Insurance Act. In Bruinsma v. Cresswell, the plaintiff was … Continue reading
Posted in Auto, Insurance News, Uninsured or Underinsured
Comments Off on C.A. Says Statutory Conditions Don’t Apply to Uninsured Auto Coverage
Superior Court Judge Strikes Down Limitation Period in Underinsured Endorsement
Schmitz v Lombard In a recent decision, Mr. Justice Martin James of the Superior Court has ruled that the limitation period contained in s. 17 of the underinsured automobile endorsement, OPCF 44R “cannot operate as a limitation defence and that … Continue reading
Posted in Auto, Discoverability, Insurance News, Limitation Periods
Comments Off on Superior Court Judge Strikes Down Limitation Period in Underinsured Endorsement