-
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
Court Upholds Insurer’s Denial of Claim Where Premises “Vacant” for More Than 30 Days
In Zimmerman v. Royal & SunAlliance Insurance Company, Mr. Justice Barry Matheson agreed that an insurer was entitled to deny coverage under a homeowner’s policy where the premises had been vacant for about 65 days. The home had been damaged … Continue reading
Posted in Insurance News
Comments Off on Court Upholds Insurer’s Denial of Claim Where Premises “Vacant” for More Than 30 Days
Duty to Defend Held to Exist, Despite “Anti-Concurrent Causation” Clause in Policy
Decision of Justice Kershman dated Aug 10, 2007.pdf Our office acted for the insured in what is, so far as we can determine, the first decision to consider whether a duty to defend was owed by an insurer whose policy … Continue reading
Posted in CGL, Exclusions, Insurance News
Comments Off on Duty to Defend Held to Exist, Despite “Anti-Concurrent Causation” Clause in Policy
Insurer Hit with $500,000 Punitive Damages Award in Fire Case
It was a good day for Barry Percival, who had cast aside the defence hat that he usually wears and was acting for the plaintiff. In Sagl v. Cosburn, Griffiths & Brandham et al., an action by a policyholder against … Continue reading
Posted in Fire Insurance, Insurance News
Comments Off on Insurer Hit with $500,000 Punitive Damages Award in Fire Case
Impairment “Permanent”, “Important”, But Not “Serious”
In Kourtesis v. Joris, Mr. Justice Edward R. Brown dismissed an action for damages arising out of a motor vehicle accident that occurred during the “Bill 59” regime of the Insurance Act. He held that the plaintiff’s chronic pain injuries … Continue reading
Posted in Auto, Insurance News, Threshold
Comments Off on Impairment “Permanent”, “Important”, But Not “Serious”
Insurer Owes No Duty to Defend Additional Named Insured When It is Already Defending Named Insured
Madam Justice Nancy M. Mossip has refused to order an insurer to undertake, in whole or in part, the defence of an additional named insured. She reasoned that since the insurer was already defending its named insured, there was no … Continue reading
Posted in CGL
Comments Off on Insurer Owes No Duty to Defend Additional Named Insured When It is Already Defending Named Insured
Jolly Jurist Juxtaposes Jocosely in Judgment
Mr. Justice David M. Brown hasn’t been a judge for very long (he was appointed to the Superior Court on September 14, 2006). Maybe he hasn’t lost his sense of humour. Or maybe the opposite is true: the job is … Continue reading
Posted in Insurance News
Comments Off on Jolly Jurist Juxtaposes Jocosely in Judgment
C.A Says Underinsured Auto Endorsement Does Not Cover Accident in Jamaica
In Pilot Insurance Company v. Sutherland, the Court of Appeal (Justices Rosenberg, Gillese and Lang) allowed an appeal from a decision of Madam Justice Margaret Eberhard of the Superior Court. Her Honour had held that a territorial limitation contained in … Continue reading
Posted in Auto, Uninsured or Underinsured
Comments Off on C.A Says Underinsured Auto Endorsement Does Not Cover Accident in Jamaica
C.A. Says No Allocation Between Primary and Excess Insurers
In McKenzie v. Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company, released today, the Court of Appeal clarified the law with respect to overlapping insurance coverage and the order in which liability insurance policies must respond to a claim. In the Supreme … Continue reading
Posted in Allocation of Defence Costs, Insurance News
Comments Off on C.A. Says No Allocation Between Primary and Excess Insurers
C.A. Says Relief from Forfeiture only Available for Post-loss Events
In Williams v. York Fire & Casualty Insurance Company, released today by the Court of Appeal, the court was dealing with a fact situation that often comes up. A driver was involved in an accident. When the accident occurred, the … Continue reading
Posted in Auto, Exclusions, Insurance News
Comments Off on C.A. Says Relief from Forfeiture only Available for Post-loss Events
Corporate Insured Permitted to Claim Damages for Mental Distress on Behalf of Its Officers in Fire Insurance Claim
In 539091 Ontario Ltd. v. Allianz Insurance, Madam Justice Helen Pierce was dealing with various proposed amendments to the statement of claim in a fire insurance case. The motion raised several interesting issues but of particular note was the request of … Continue reading
Posted in Fire Insurance, Insurance News, Practice and Procedure
Comments Off on Corporate Insured Permitted to Claim Damages for Mental Distress on Behalf of Its Officers in Fire Insurance Claim