A NEW APPROACH IN DEALING WITH THE POLLUTION EXCLUSION
The Precision Plating Ltd. v. Axa Pacific Insurance Co. decision from the British Columbia Court of Appeal is the most recent appellate court consideration of the pollution exclusion. The general form of pollution exclusion underwent multiple changes in the 1970s and 1980s in order to make the wording constitute an ‘absolute exclusion’ in coverage disputes. [...]
PLEADINGS GONE WILD: NO COVERAGE FOR DERIVATIVE CLAIMS
In a coverage dispute between insurer and insured, the Supreme Court of Canada has been clear that even a mere possibility of a claim coming within coverage territory is enough to trigger the duty to defend. This is called the ‘pleadings rule’ and it is well known to plaintiff and defence counsel alike. What happens [...]
Substance Over Form – Whether a Defendant or Third Party: Renter Pays First
Where an automobile is leased or rented and involved in a motor vehicle accident, section 277(1.1) of the Insurance Act, sets out the order in which insurance policies are to respond. The section states that “the third party liability provisions of any available motor vehicle liability policies shall respond” in the following order: insurance available [...]
Defect or Damage? Who pays when construction goes wrong?
The B.C. Court recently interpreted the standard workmanship and design defect exclusion contained in the Course of Construction insurance policy and the result has taken many by surprise. In Acciona Infrastructure Canada Inc. v. Allianz Global Risks US Insurance Company, the British Columbia Supreme Court interpreted the design or workmanship exclusion, (otherwise known as the [...]
NO LICENCE, NO COVERAGE – RIGHT? WRONG.
Back in September, Colin Chant enlightened us on the topic of insurance coverage where an insured drives without a licence. Justice Wood of the Superior Court of Justice concluded that Barbara Kozel, a 77-year-old who had severely injured a motorcyclist in a motor vehicle accident in Florida, was entitled to insurance coverage even though she [...]
$1MILLION AND NOT A PENNY MORE: NO COVERAGE UNDER LESSOR’S POLICY FOR LESSEE
Are you handling a case involving a motor vehicle accident which occurred between March 1, 2006 and January 1, 2008? Is there a leasing company involved? Even if your answers are no and no, you won’t want to skip this fascinating blog post.
The Bronfmans and the Brokers: Who is Responsible for Advising the Obviously Rich of the Obvious Risks?
The duty owed by insurance brokers to advise on insurance coverage will be addressed by the Ontario Court of Appeal later this year in Bronfman v. BFL. This case has it all: an unsolved theft, Stanley Cup rings, and millions of dollars’ worth of jewelry. Of course, it’s not about the theft, the rings, or [...]
EVERYTHING YOU ALWAYS WANTED TO KNOW BUT WERE AFRAID TO ASK ABOUT DRIVING WHEN YOU THOUGHT YOU HAD A VALID LICENSE BUT ACTUALLY DIDN’T
Auto policy coverage mavens who follow our blog already know about the circumstances under which drivers can be denied coverage for breaching statutory conditions from Forough Ghorbani’s compelling posts on the topic. Kozel v The Personal Insurance Company 2013 ONSC 2670 sheds further light on how the courts approach breaches of statutory conditions by specifically [...]
Stonewalled. And may a thousand deductibles fly up your nose
Goodyear Canada Inc. manufactured a rubber product used to make gaskets, which contained asbestos. The asbestos-containing product was shipped to the United States for use in the ship building industry. In the 1970s and 1980s, Goodyear found itself engulfed in what the Ontario Court of Appeal recently described as a “tsunami” of U.S. asbestos litigation. [...]
This Time It’s Not Business – It’s Personal
A man walked into a car rental office and rented a car. He was on a business trip. While driving the rented car, the man is involved in a collision with the plaintiff. The man’s insurer said that since the man was on business the real renter of the car was the man’s employer, and [...]