-
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: Collateral Benefits
CPP and HOOP Benefits Held Not Deductible from Income Loss Damages
In Demers v. B.R. Davidson Mining & Development Ltd., Mr. Justice Douglas C. Shaw has held that, for the period November 1, 1996 to September 30, 2003, CPP benefits are not deductible from an award of tort damages in a … Continue reading
Posted in Collateral Benefits, Damages
Comments Off on CPP and HOOP Benefits Held Not Deductible from Income Loss Damages
C.A. Clarifies Requirements for Non-earner Benefits
It was apparent from its ruling yesterday in Heath v. Economical Mutual Insurance Company, that the Court of Appeal was not very impressed with the trial decision of Mr. Justice John C. Kennedy. The plaintiff had been involved in a rear-end … Continue reading
Posted in Auto, Collateral Benefits, Insurance News
Comments Off on C.A. Clarifies Requirements for Non-earner Benefits
C.A. Upholds Big SABS Judgment
This week, the Court of Appeal released its ruling in Monks v. ING Insurance Company of Canada. This was a claim for statutory accident benefits brought by, ironically, a woman who, prior to her injury, had worked in the insurance industry. … Continue reading
Posted in Auto, Collateral Benefits, Insurance News
Comments Off on C.A. Upholds Big SABS Judgment
Must Insurer Maintain “Firewall” Between Tort and No-Fault Claims?
In Trecartin v. Pilot Insurance Company, Mr. Justice George T. Valin considered the position of an insurer defending both a tort action and an accident benefits claim brought by the same plaintiff. In the no-fault action, the insurer, Pilot Insurance, was … Continue reading
Posted in Auto, Collateral Benefits, Discovery, Insurance News, Practice and Procedure, Privacy, Privilege
Comments Off on Must Insurer Maintain “Firewall” Between Tort and No-Fault Claims?
Death Benefits Not Deductible from Tort Damages
In brief supplementary reasons, given in Wright v. Hannon (the original reasons for judgment can be accessed here), Mr. Justice Randall S. Echlin held (or perhaps “confirmed” would be a better word), that statutory accident death benefits are properly characterized as … Continue reading
Posted in Collateral Benefits
Comments Off on Death Benefits Not Deductible from Tort Damages
ODSP Benefits Not Deductible from MVA Damages
In Moss v. Hutchinson & Associates, Mr. Justice Peter Howden has ruled that benefits received by a plaintiff from the Ontario Disability Support Program (“ODSP”) are not deductible from an award of tort damages. The action arose out of a … Continue reading
Posted in Auto, Collateral Benefits, Damages, Insurance News
Comments Off on ODSP Benefits Not Deductible from MVA Damages
$400,000 in Interest Payable on 10 Years’ of Accident Benefits Improperly Terminated in 1997 (but Plaintiff had Fully Recovered by 1998!)
A new decision of the Ontario Superior Court is a painful reminder to auto insurers of the importance of following the correct procedure in terminating statutory accident benefits. The failure of the insurer to use the correct form of notice … Continue reading
Posted in Auto, Collateral Benefits, Insurance News
Comments Off on $400,000 in Interest Payable on 10 Years’ of Accident Benefits Improperly Terminated in 1997 (but Plaintiff had Fully Recovered by 1998!)
C.A. Says Son In Mother’s “Control” Is Not Within Her “Care”, For SABS Purposes
In Oxford Mutual Insurance Company v. Co-operators General Insurance Company, released today, the Court of Appeal had to decide whether a claimant was “principally dependent” on his mother at the time of being injured in a motor vehicle accident. If … Continue reading
Posted in Auto, Collateral Benefits, Insurance News
Comments Off on C.A. Says Son In Mother’s “Control” Is Not Within Her “Care”, For SABS Purposes
Chronic Pain Plaintiff with “Questionable” Credibility “Just Barely” Meets Threshold
ADDENDUM Since our original post about this case, we were advised by Doug Smith, counsel for the defence, about some additional and pertinent facts. His comment appears at the end of this post but, in a nutshell, he told us … Continue reading
Posted in Auto, Collateral Benefits, Damages, FLA, Insurance News, Threshold
Comments Off on Chronic Pain Plaintiff with “Questionable” Credibility “Just Barely” Meets Threshold
C.A. Says Insurers Can’t Sue to Challenge CAT DAC Finding, But Insureds Can
In a significant decision today, the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by Liberty Mutual Insurance Company from a ruling of Mr. Justice Geoffrey Morawetz, who had dismissed a lawsuit brought by Liberty, to dispute a CAT DAC assessment of … Continue reading
Posted in Auto, Collateral Benefits, Insurance News
Comments Off on C.A. Says Insurers Can’t Sue to Challenge CAT DAC Finding, But Insureds Can