Throwing an egg at someone: the hatching of a new legal test addressed in Gilbraith v Intact Insurance Company

Introduction

Many risks associated with driving a vehicle are intuitive; some are not.

Imprecision in identifying the risks of driving influences how insurers assess the value of automobile insurance. A recent Ontario Superior Court decision, Gilbraith v Intact Insurance Company, reminds insurers and insured persons how difficult it can be to properly assess and categorize risk at the outset of an insurance relationship.

This case will likely rise through appellate courts in Ontario, which provides an opportunity for the courts to clarify the risks that an auto insurance policy will reasonably cover.  

Gilbraith v Intact Insurance Company

Stephanie Gilbraith was walking along a sidewalk with a friend when a vehicle approached her from the opposite direction.

Read more

Alberta Court of Appeal: Entitlement to Section B benefits requires compliance with IME protocol

Can an insurer deny all Section B benefits if an insured agrees to attend an IME on conditions that conflict with the protocol of the examining medical practitioner? The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench had occasion to consider this in Greenidge v Allstate Insurance Company, 2018 ABQB 266 [Greenidge], and answered this question in the affirmative. More recently, the Court of Appeal in Greenidge v Allstate Insurance Company, 2019 ABCA 52, heard the appeal of that issue and also answered the issue in the affirmative. An insured who conditions their compliance with the Section B policy on conditions that do not accord with an election made by the insurer can disentitle that insured from further benefits.

Read more

ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL PROVIDES CLARIFICATION ON OVERLAPPING INSURANCE POLICIES CONTAINING “OTHER INSURANCE CLAUSES”

In the recent Ontario Court of Appeal case, TD General Insurance Co. v. Intact Insurance Co., [2019] ONCA 5, the passenger of a boat sustained injuries when the boat struck the shoreline. 

The passenger sued both the driver and the owner of the boat.  Two insurance policies were triggered by the loss. The owner of the boat held a TD insurance policy that covered the driver, who was driving the boat with the owner’s permission. The driver was also covered by his own homeowner’s policy, issued by Intact.

The two policies had identical “other insurance clauses”. The clauses provided as follows:

If you have other insurance which applies to a loss or claim, or would have applied if this policy did not exist, this policy will be considered excess insurance and we will not pay any loss or claim until the amount of such other insurance is used up.

Read more

Propping up Insurable Interests

  • Introduction

In Windsor v. Portage La Prairie Mutual Insurance Company, 2017 ABPC 316, the Plaintiff claimed indemnification under a residential insurance policy by the Defendant when unknown persons broke into her garage and stole some items including some prop guns. 

As a brief background, Mr. Wendland who was not named in the Action, signed a promissory note on June 19, 2014, pursuant to which he agreed to pay the Plaintiff $25,000.00 and interest at an unspecified rate, to secure a repayment of funds later loaned to Wendland in an amount totalling $24,175.81.  Wendland had given the prop guns to the plaintiff as security for the loan.

Read more

Analysis of Weir Jones and its Application in BF

Overview:

The Alberta Court of Appeal provides clarification of the test for summary judgment applications in Weir-Jones Technical Services Incorporated v Purolator Courier Ltd, 2019 ABCA 49 [“Weir”]. The Court of Appeal notes the rift that had emerged in case law while discussing the standard of proof that is required in a summary judgment application.[1] In particular, decisions of Can v Calgary Police Service, 2014 ABCA 322, and Stefanyk v Sobeys Capital Incorporated, 2018 ABCA 125, demonstrate the divergence in the application of the standard of proof that is required for summary judgment.[2] The Court mentioned that “it is now possible to find a quote in the case law to support virtually any view of the test to be used in summary judgment”.

Read more

Court dismisses statutory misrepresentation claim against credit union board in landmark decision

For the first time, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice released a decision that considered issues of statutory misrepresentation in an offering statement under the Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires Act, 1994[1] (Act). Polla v. Croatian (Toronto) Credit Union also provides extensive guidance on issues of directors’ and officers’ liability more generally. There is very limited jurisprudence in this area, and this landmark decision is expected to provide valuable guidance to boards and insurers on risk prevention. This insight provides a high-level overview of the decision.

Facts

The plaintiff, Ferdinando Polla (Polla), invested CA1 $5 million in the Croatian Credit Union (CCU) after the struggling credit union filed an offering statement in order to raise funds.

Read more

Khalid v 2262351 Ontario Inc.: Third party discoverability grounded in reasonability

Introduction

In negligence-based actions, defendants routinely issue third party claims for contribution and indemnity to reduce their liability exposure. As a result, the plaintiff can commence a claim believing certain defendants to have caused the plaintiff’s loss, but, after successive third party claims, learn that several other persons might have contributed to the loss. To increase the prospect of recovery, the plaintiff often moves to add these third parties as defendants, long-after the impugned act or omission took place.

In these circumstances, third parties should consider whether to oppose a motion to be added as a defendant pursuant to section 21(1) of the Limitations Act, 2002:

21 (1) If a limitation period in respect of a claim against a person has expired, the claim shall not be pursued by adding the person as a party to any existing proceeding.

Read more