-
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: Auto
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. 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
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
C.A. Says Conviction for Careless Driving Doesn’t Allow Auto Insurer to Deny Coverage On the Basis of Intentional Act
In Savage v. Belecque, released last week, the Court of Appeal considered whether Allstate Insurance had been justified in denying coverage to a young driver and to his mother, the owner of the car, on the basis that the act … Continue reading
Posted in Auto, Costs, Duty to Defend
Comments Off on C.A. Says Conviction for Careless Driving Doesn’t Allow Auto Insurer to Deny Coverage On the Basis of Intentional Act
C.A. Rules Definitively On Limitation Period for Claim Under Underinsured Endorsement
In Roque v. Pilot Insurance Company, 2012 ONCA 311 (CanLII), the Court of Appeal dispelled any doubt about when the limitation period commences to run for a claim against an insurer that provides underinsured motorist coverage. It agreed with Master Ronald … Continue reading
Posted in Auto, Discoverability, Insurance News, Limitation Periods
Comments Off on C.A. Rules Definitively On Limitation Period for Claim Under Underinsured Endorsement
A Time To Every Purpose Under Heaven
The calculation of periods of time specified in statutes, rules and contracts is a continuing source of anxiety for lawyers. Filing a document one day late can have dire consequences. But figuring out just what is one day late is … Continue reading
Posted in Auto, Insurance News
Comments Off on A Time To Every Purpose Under Heaven
C.A. Says Bad Faith Action Against Auto Insurer Not Subject to Limitation Period in Policy
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Dundas v. Zurich Canada, 2012 ONCA 181, is interesting for a couple of reasons: liability of an insurer for failing to pay its policy limits into an interest-bearing account and the limitation period that … Continue reading
Posted in Auto, Discoverability, Insurance News, Limitation Periods
Comments Off on C.A. Says Bad Faith Action Against Auto Insurer Not Subject to Limitation Period in Policy
Master Pope Refuses To Add Insurer in OPCF-44R Claim
Vogler v. Lemieux, 2012 ONSC 1692 is an interesting case and, to me, a bit puzzling. I am hoping that one of the readers of this blog can clear things up for me. The plaintiff was injured in a single … Continue reading
Posted in Auto, Uninsured or Underinsured
Comments Off on Master Pope Refuses To Add Insurer in OPCF-44R Claim
Superior Court Refuses to Dismiss Accident Benefits Lawsuits, Despite Mediation Not Having Taken Place
Last week, Mr. Justice James W. Sloan delivered a ruling in four cases that will have an impact on statutory accident benefits litigation. The cases are: Cornie v. Security National, Hurst v. Aviva Insurance Company, Singh v. Aviva Insurance Company and … Continue reading
Posted in Auto
Comments Off on Superior Court Refuses to Dismiss Accident Benefits Lawsuits, Despite Mediation Not Having Taken Place