Actions

Actions - Stay of proceedings; Commercial general liability insurance - Duty to defend; Jurisdiction - Forum non conveniens - Location of contract
A representative Plaintiff from a class action in Illinois against the Insured brought a motion for a stay of proceedings in an Ontario proceeding. The Ontario proceeding was for a declaration that the Insurer was not required to defend the Insured against the representative Plaintiff’s complaint, nor indemnify the claim. The Court dismissed the motion on the basis that Ontario was the forum conveniens. ING Insurance Co. of Canada v. Health Craft Products Inc. [2007] O.J. No. 825

Automobile insurance

Automobile insurance - Duty to defend - Named insured, definition - Third parties - Ownership, use or operation of motor vehicle
A Plaintiff was severely injured while being towed on inline skates behind a motor vehicle. Two sets of Defendants, the occupants of the vehicle and the parents of the occupants, applied for summary judgment on the issue of whether the Insurer of the motor vehicle had a duty to defend. The Court found that the Insurer was obligated to defend the occupants, but was not obligated to defend the parents since they were not named Insured, persons driving the vehicle, or occupants of the vehicle. Morrow v. Symons, [2007] O.J. No. 662

Commercial general liability insurance

Commercial general liability insurance - Coverage - Interpretation of policy - Occurrence - Property damage - Exclusions; Policies and insurance contracts - Defences to exclude coverage - Summary judgment vs. trial; Damages - Economic loss
The Plaintiffs were granted summary judgment pursuant to s. 132 of the Insurance Act against the Insurer who denied coverage under a CGL policy for a claim against a general contractor who was found to have supplied a defective dewatering system which caused damage to property owned by third parties. York Region Condominium Corp. No. 772 v. Lombard Canada Ltd., [2007] O.J. No. 534

Commercial general liability insurance - Coverage - Interpretation of policy - Duty to defend - Exclusions - defective workmanship - General contractors - Own work / product exclusion
The Insurer applied for a declaration that it had no duty to defend the Respondents against a claim brought by two strata corporations for allegedly defective workmanship and resultant damage. The Court found that the decision in Swagger Construction Ltd v. ING Insurance Co. of Canada, 2005 BCSC 1269 applied only to general contractors, and refused to grant the declaration in respect of the owner/developer.

Homeowner's insurance

Homeowner's insurance - Policies and insurance contracts - Accidental death or injury; Actions - Bodily injury - Coverage - Exclusions - Interpretation of policy - Intentional acts - Criminal acts, definition - Negligence
The Court of Appeal held that where an Insured was convicted of criminal negligence causing harm, the exclusion in the homeowners policy for damages caused by intentional or criminal acts applied even without proof of intention to cause the injury or damage, so long as the act or omission that caused the harm was criminal in nature. R.E. v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co., [2007] O.J. No. 482

For comments or suggestions, please contact: