Automobile insurance - Duty to defend - Named insured, definition - Third parties - Ownership, use or operation of motor vehicle

April 2007

Morrow v. Symons

[2007] O.J. No. 662
Ontario Superior Court of Justice
L.A. Pattillo J.

February 23, 2007

A Plaintiff was severely injured while being towed on inline skates by a rope 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 has 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.

A Plaintiff who suffered severe injury as a result of being towed behind a vehicle while wearing inline skates brought an action against the occupants of the vehicle and the parents of the occupants.  The occupants and their parents brought a motion for summary judgment on the issue of whether the Insurer of the vehicle, the Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company (“Dominion”), had a duty to defend them.  The Court found that since the first set of Defendants were the occupants of the vehicle, they were Insured under the policy.  However, the second set of Defendants, the parents of the occupants, were not covered, because they were not Insureds.  Alternatively, even if they were Insureds, the Court found that the allegations of negligence against the parent Defendants related to failure to control, supervise, warn or instruct, and these allegations were outside the “use or operation” of the vehicle.