Netletter

Welcome to the June 2007 Insurance Netletter.

In this issue:

  1. Automobile insurance
  2. Canadian Insurance Law Blog
  3. Commercial General Liability
  4. Homeowner's insurance

Please contact Nigel Trevethan or any member of our Insurance Practice Group with any questions about the cases in our netletter. A version of this netletter is published twice per month on Quicklaw.

About this Newsletter
The Harper Grey LLP Insurance Netletter provides a monthly review of new cases and emerging issues in Canadian insurance law. These summaries are not legal opinions. Readers should not act on the basis of these summaries without first consulting a lawyer for analysis and advice on a specific matter.


Automobile insurance

Insurance law - Injunctions - Mareva injunctions - Availability; Automobile insurance - Fraud; Settlement of action - Formation and validity
Application by the Provincial Motor Vehicle Insurer (“ICBC”) for a Mareva injunction against an Insured with whom ICBC had previously reached a settlement agreement. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia v. Patko, [2007] B.C.J. No. 1141

Canadian Insurance Law Blog

Harper Grey LLP lawyer launches a new insurance blog
Harper Grey LLP lawyer Mike Thomas launched the Canadian Insurance Law Blog in June 2007. The blog has received a lot of positive interest and commentary from national and international insurance professionals.

Commercial General Liability

Insurance law - Liability insurance - Commercial general liability insurance - Interpretation of policy - Duty to defend - Coverage - Pollution exclusions - Property damage; Evidence - Extrinsic evidence; Pleadings - Underlying action
Unsuccessful petition by the Insured seeking a declaration that its Insurer had a duty to defend proceedings brought by a third party for damages allegedly sustained as a result of the Insured’s operations. Dave’s K. & K. Sandblasting (1988) Ltd. (c.o.b. K&K Sandblasting Ltd.) v. Aviva Insurance Co. of Canada, [2007] B.C.J. No. 1203

Homeowner's insurance

Insurance law - Homeowner's insurance - Exclusions - Interpretation of policy - Criminal acts - Intentional acts; Policies and insurance contracts - Statutory provisions
The Insured attempted to commit suicide by disconnecting four separate lines supplying natural gas to his residence. The natural gas ignited and an explosion occurred. The Insured was charged with and pled guilty to an offence contrary to s. 436 of the Criminal Code. Since the homeowners policy excluded bodily injury or property damage caused intentionally or resulting from a criminal act, coverage was excluded. Yates v. Co-Operators General Insurance Co., [2007] O.J. No. 1549


For comments or suggestions, please contact:

Nigel L. Trevethan
Insurance Law Group Chair
Harper Grey LLP
Barristers & Solicitors

t: 604.895.2821
f: 604.669.9385
e: ntrevethan@harpergrey.com
w: harpergrey.com

   
© Copyright 2008. Harper Grey
TAGLaw Logo