Netletter

Welcome to the August 2007 Insurance Netletter.

In this issue:

  1. Business insurance
  2. Fire insurance
  3. Multiple Policies

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.


Business insurance

Business interruption insurance - Pleadings - Underlying action - Admissions; Appeals - Leave to appeal; Damages - Punitive damages
On an application to amend the Statement of Claim of a corporate insured in an action alleging bad faith against the Defendant Insurer, the Court permitted an informal admission to be withdrawn and permitted the amendment seeking business interruptions losses since this would not cause prejudice to the Defendant Insurer. The corporate Plaintiff was also permitted to amend the Statement of Claim to seek damages for mental distress on behalf of the officers of the Plaintiff corporation despite the limited scope of coverage extended to officers and shareholders under the policy. 539091 Ontario Ltd. (c.o.b. Len’s R.V. Sales) v. Allianz Insurance Co. of Canada, [2007] O.J. No. 2428

Fire insurance

Fire insurance - All-risk insurance - Policies and insurance contracts - Interpretation of policy; Subrogation - Right of insurer to subrogation - Insurer against insured
A condominium developer appealed from a decision that the Insurer’s subrogation action against it was not barred. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, and held that the Insurer had no subrogation rights against the Insured. Condominium Corp. No. 9813678 v. Statesman Corp., [2007] A.J. No. 695

Multiple Policies

Insurance law - Multiple policies - Interpretation of policy
The Court allowed the appeal of the Plaintiff Insured after finding that a personal liability policy was a true excess or umbrella policy that was not called upon to respond to the claims until the limits of the home owner’s policy were exhausted. McKenzie v. Dominion of Canada General Insurance Co., [2007] O.J. No. 2518


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