-
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
Can Defendants Ever Make Effective Rule 49 Offers in MVA Cases?
We are indebted to Mark (“Billy Idol”) Charron of Williams McEnery for alerting us to the recent decision in Peterson v. Phillips. This is another case that deals with the relationship between offers to settle in MVA claims and the … Continue reading
Posted in Auto, Costs, Insurance News, Threshold
Comments Off on Can Defendants Ever Make Effective Rule 49 Offers in MVA Cases?
Not “Quantum of Solace” But “Quantum of Claims”
In McCook v. Subramaniam, Master Ronald Dash considered whether to permit a plaintiff to add as a defendant his own auto insurer, under its underinsured motorist endorsement. The insurer resisted the motion on the basis that the plaintiff had not … Continue reading
Posted in Auto, Insurance News, Uninsured or Underinsured
Comments Off on Not “Quantum of Solace” But “Quantum of Claims”
Income Replacement Benefits Subject to Garnishment
Mr. Justice John Cavarzan has held, in Lease Truck Inc. v. Serbinek, that a creditor of an insured is entitled to garnishment of income replacement benefits. Once it receives notice of the garnishment, the insurer paying the accident benefits is … Continue reading
Posted in Auto, Insurance News
Comments Off on Income Replacement Benefits Subject to Garnishment
Owner “Relinquished Dominion and Control” of Car, But Her Consent to Possession by Driver Still Necessary?
In Seegmiller v. Langer, Justice George R. Strathy reviewed the law with respect to when the owner of an automobile will be liable when someone else drives it and is involved in an accident. His reasons contain a useful review … Continue reading
Posted in Auto, Insurance News
Comments Off on Owner “Relinquished Dominion and Control” of Car, But Her Consent to Possession by Driver Still Necessary?
Limitation Period for MVA Pecuniary Claims Follows That of Non-pecuniary Claims, Says Superior Court
Hard on the heels of the Court of Appeal’s decision in Grewal v. Ivany, released last Friday, Mr. Justice Paul Perell has delivered reasons in Ng v. Beline that address one of the issues considered in Grewal: in personal injury … Continue reading
Posted in Discoverability, Limitation Periods, Threshold
Comments Off on Limitation Period for MVA Pecuniary Claims Follows That of Non-pecuniary Claims, Says Superior Court
C.A. Opens Door to Multiple Limitation Periods in MVA Cases
[Addendum: Since this decision was released and our commentary posted, Mr. Justice Paul Perell has released reasons in Ng v. Beline that deal directly with the issue discussed in this post. It appears that neither the Court of Appeal nor … Continue reading
Posted in Discoverability, Limitation Periods, Threshold
Comments Off on C.A. Opens Door to Multiple Limitation Periods in MVA Cases
Judge Says Plaintiff Not Required to Pursue Claim Against Tortfeasor As Condition of Accessing Uninsured Motorist Coverage
[Addendum: This decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal on August 21, 2009.] Ontario auto insurers might be surprised to learn that the Insurance Act and the standard auto policy do not require persons claiming against the uninsured motorist coverage to pursue anyone whose negligence … Continue reading
Posted in Auto, Insurance News, Uninsured or Underinsured
Comments Off on Judge Says Plaintiff Not Required to Pursue Claim Against Tortfeasor As Condition of Accessing Uninsured Motorist Coverage
First Bill 198 Decision Says Not Much Has Changed
Nissan v. McNamee is, so far as we know, the first decision to interpret the “gloss” on the Insurance Act threshold that was enacted by regulation O.Reg. 381/03 (the package of legislative changes commonly referred to as “Bill 198”). The regulation took effect on … Continue reading
Posted in Auto, Insurance News, Threshold
Comments Off on First Bill 198 Decision Says Not Much Has Changed
C.A. Says Trial Judge Applied Wrong Test in Determining Whether Injury “Serious” and “Permanent”
Brak v. Walsh is a short decision of the Court of Appeal (Justices Karen M. Weiler, Michael J. Moldaver and Russell G. Jurianz), on appeal from a ruling by Mr. Justice Gordon Killeen on a threshold motion brought at the … Continue reading
Posted in Auto, Insurance News, Threshold
Comments Off on C.A. Says Trial Judge Applied Wrong Test in Determining Whether Injury “Serious” and “Permanent”
Court Ignores Past Collateral Benefits in Evaluating Rule 49 Offer
Bad news for insurers. In Ksiazek v. Newport Leasing Limited, Mr. Justice C. Raymond Harris extended the application of the Court of Appeal’s decision in Rider v. Dydyk and ruled that a defendant’s offer to settle should be compared with … Continue reading
Posted in Auto, Costs, Insurance News, Trial Procedure
Comments Off on Court Ignores Past Collateral Benefits in Evaluating Rule 49 Offer