<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1" ?>
				<!-- RSS generated by Pencilneck CMS :: version 4.3 on 2012-05-18 06:42:00 PM GMT -->
				<rss version="2.0">
					<channel>
						<title>Harper Grey: Newsletter: Insurance</title>
						<link>http://www.harpergrey.com/</link>
						<description>Harper Grey: Newsletter: Insurance RSS Feed</description>
						<language>en-us</language>
						<copyright>Copyright 2012, Harper Grey</copyright>
						<managingEditor>stannock@pencilnecksoftware.com (Natasha Chetty)</managingEditor>
						<webMaster>support@pencilnecksoftware.com (Pencilneck Software)</webMaster>
						<lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 May 2012 18:42:00 GMT</lastBuildDate>
						
						<category>Newsletter: Insurance</category>
						
						<generator>Pencilneck Software Pencilneck CMS v. 4.3 (http://www.pencilnecksoftware.com)</generator>
						<docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
						<ttl>60</ttl>

						
							<item>
								<title>New lawyers join Harper Grey LLP</title>
								<link>http://www.harpergrey.com/insurance/2012/05/article416/</link>
								
								<author>stannock@pencilnecksoftware.com ()</author>
								<category>Newsletter: Insurance</category>
								
								<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.harpergrey.com/insurance/2012/05/article416/</guid>
								<pubDate>Tue, 15 May 2012 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
							</item>
						
							<item>
								<title>Automobile insurance</title>
								<link>http://www.harpergrey.com/insurance/2012/05/article415/</link>
								
									<description>The Ontario Court of Appeal held that an insured&apos;s claims against insurer for breach of duty of good faith is governed by the general six year limitation period,  not s. 207 of the Insurance Act. This case involved the death in 1988 of four people in an automobile accident.</description>
								
								<author>stannock@pencilnecksoftware.com ()</author>
								<category>Newsletter: Insurance</category>
								
								<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.harpergrey.com/insurance/2012/05/article415/</guid>
								<pubDate>Tue, 15 May 2012 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
							</item>
						
							<item>
								<title>Liability insurance</title>
								<link>http://www.harpergrey.com/insurance/2012/05/article414/</link>
								
									<description>The plaintiff was a passenger in a vehicle driven by a defendant, which was struck by another vehicle driven by a co defendant, who was uninsured. The defendant, Unifund Assurance Company, is an OPCF 44-R carrier and is only obliged to pay as excess insurer if no other insured party has at least one percent liability. The court dismissed Unifund’s motion for summary judgment on the basis that the issue of the insured defendant’s liability required a trial.</description>
								
								<author>stannock@pencilnecksoftware.com ()</author>
								<category>Newsletter: Insurance</category>
								
								<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.harpergrey.com/insurance/2012/05/article414/</guid>
								<pubDate>Tue, 15 May 2012 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
							</item>
						
							<item>
								<title>Commercial general liability insurance</title>
								<link>http://www.harpergrey.com/insurance/2012/05/article413/</link>
								
									<description>The applicant Minto sought a declaration and order that the insured Carlsbad and the insurer Intact Insurance were obliged to provide and fund the full defence of Minto in an underlying action in which the plaintiff sought damages for injuries she sustained due to ice and slippery conditions on a parking lot near the residence for which the insured had a contract with Minto to perform snow clearing, snow removal, and ice control.</description>
								
								<author>stannock@pencilnecksoftware.com ()</author>
								<category>Newsletter: Insurance</category>
								
								<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.harpergrey.com/insurance/2012/05/article413/</guid>
								<pubDate>Tue, 15 May 2012 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
							</item>
						
							<item>
								<title>Automobile insurance</title>
								<link>http://www.harpergrey.com/insurance/2012/04/article402/</link>
								
									<description>In this case the insured alleged his broker failed to properly offer optional income replacement benefit coverage as part of his automobile insurance policy.  The Court found that although the broker had breached the applicable standard of care, the insured had not shown on a balance of probabilities that he would have purchased the income replacement benefit coverage if it had been properly offered. The insured’s motion for summary judgment against his broker was dismissed.</description>
								
								<author>stannock@pencilnecksoftware.com ()</author>
								<category>Newsletter: Insurance</category>
								
								<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.harpergrey.com/insurance/2012/04/article402/</guid>
								<pubDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2012 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
							</item>
						
							<item>
								<title>Life insurance</title>
								<link>http://www.harpergrey.com/insurance/2012/04/article401/</link>
								
									<description>This appeal involved the insurer from a trial judgment finding it liable under a mortgage life insurance policy. The appeal was allowed and the action was dismissed and costs awarded to the appellant.</description>
								
								<author>stannock@pencilnecksoftware.com ()</author>
								<category>Newsletter: Insurance</category>
								
								<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.harpergrey.com/insurance/2012/04/article401/</guid>
								<pubDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2012 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
							</item>
						
							<item>
								<title>Automobile insurance</title>
								<link>http://www.harpergrey.com/insurance/2012/04/article400/</link>
								
									<description>A plaintiff was successful in seeking a declaration that she was entitled to coverage on the basis that her motor vehicle insurer had not established she was impaired at the time of the accident and she was awarded punitive damages for the insurer’s bad faith conduct with respect to the claim.</description>
								
								<author>stannock@pencilnecksoftware.com ()</author>
								<category>Newsletter: Insurance</category>
								
								<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.harpergrey.com/insurance/2012/04/article400/</guid>
								<pubDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2012 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
							</item>
						
							<item>
								<title>Liability insurance</title>
								<link>http://www.harpergrey.com/insurance/2012/04/article399/</link>
								
									<description>The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal upheld a decision finding that the provisions of the Nova Scotia Health Services and Insurance Act permit the government to pursue nursing home care costs from injuries arising from a motor vehicle action by way of subrogated action.</description>
								
								<author>stannock@pencilnecksoftware.com ()</author>
								<category>Newsletter: Insurance</category>
								
								<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.harpergrey.com/insurance/2012/04/article399/</guid>
								<pubDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2012 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
							</item>
						
							<item>
								<title>Automobile insurance</title>
								<link>http://www.harpergrey.com/insurance/2012/03/article390/</link>
								
									<description>Successful application by the plaintiffs to add the insurer as a defendant.  At issue was whether section 259.1 of the Insurance Act, which contains a one year limitation period, applied to the plaintiffs’ claim.  The Court found that section 259.1 did not apply to &quot;loss of use&quot; and, therefore, the plaintiffs’ application was granted.</description>
								
								<author>stannock@pencilnecksoftware.com ()</author>
								<category>Newsletter: Insurance</category>
								
								<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.harpergrey.com/insurance/2012/03/article390/</guid>
								<pubDate>Thu, 15 Mar 2012 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
							</item>
						
							<item>
								<title>Commercial general liability insurance</title>
								<link>http://www.harpergrey.com/insurance/2012/03/article389/</link>
								
									<description>Application for a declaration of a duty to defend dismissed because there was no occurrence under the policy of insurance and there was no possibility of a duty to indemnify.</description>
								
								<author>stannock@pencilnecksoftware.com ()</author>
								<category>Newsletter: Insurance</category>
								
								<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.harpergrey.com/insurance/2012/03/article389/</guid>
								<pubDate>Thu, 15 Mar 2012 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
							</item>
						
							<item>
								<title>Automobile insurance</title>
								<link>http://www.harpergrey.com/insurance/2012/03/article388/</link>
								
									<description>An application for a declaration that statutory conditions of a policy of insurance had been breached and for a declaration that there was no obligation to defend and indemnify the insured.  The application was dismissed.</description>
								
								<author>stannock@pencilnecksoftware.com ()</author>
								<category>Newsletter: Insurance</category>
								
								<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.harpergrey.com/insurance/2012/03/article388/</guid>
								<pubDate>Thu, 15 Mar 2012 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
							</item>
						
							<item>
								<title>Life insurance</title>
								<link>http://www.harpergrey.com/insurance/2012/03/article387/</link>
								
									<description>The plaintiff applied unsuccessfully for a declaration that she was entitled to accidental death benefits under a policy of life insurance following the death of her husband.</description>
								
								<author>stannock@pencilnecksoftware.com ()</author>
								<category>Newsletter: Insurance</category>
								
								<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.harpergrey.com/insurance/2012/03/article387/</guid>
								<pubDate>Thu, 15 Mar 2012 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
							</item>
						
							<item>
								<title>Life insurance</title>
								<link>http://www.harpergrey.com/insurance/2012/02/article372/</link>
								
									<description>An insurer denied payment on a life insurance policy following the death of the insured in a plane crash, based on an exclusion clause requiring the insured to have the &quot;required licence&quot; to fly. The decision was upheld because the insured&apos;s medical certificate had expired one year before the accident.</description>
								
								<author>stannock@pencilnecksoftware.com ()</author>
								<category>Newsletter: Insurance</category>
								
								<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.harpergrey.com/insurance/2012/02/article372/</guid>
								<pubDate>Wed, 15 Feb 2012 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
							</item>
						
							<item>
								<title>Liability insurance</title>
								<link>http://www.harpergrey.com/insurance/2012/02/article371/</link>
								
									<description>An insurer was found to have a duty to defend university employees in the context of claims by a former student for misappropriation of ideas and use of concepts.</description>
								
								<author>stannock@pencilnecksoftware.com ()</author>
								<category>Newsletter: Insurance</category>
								
								<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.harpergrey.com/insurance/2012/02/article371/</guid>
								<pubDate>Wed, 15 Feb 2012 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
							</item>
						
							<item>
								<title>Automobile insurance</title>
								<link>http://www.harpergrey.com/insurance/2012/02/article370/</link>
								
									<description>The one year limitation period set out in clause 6(c) of the SEF 44 endorsement may start to run only when a judgment or binding settlement legally fixes the amount of those claims.  This will often allow an injured person sue later than the ultimate &quot;ten year&quot; statutory section 3(1)(b) of the Limitations Act.  Section 7(1) of the Limitations Act expressly allowes that extension.  Alternatively, section 647 of the Insurance Act permits the contractual limitation period in the endorsement.</description>
								
								<author>stannock@pencilnecksoftware.com ()</author>
								<category>Newsletter: Insurance</category>
								
								<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.harpergrey.com/insurance/2012/02/article370/</guid>
								<pubDate>Wed, 15 Feb 2012 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
							</item>
						
							<item>
								<title>Duties and liabilities</title>
								<link>http://www.harpergrey.com/insurance/2012/02/article369/</link>
								
									<description>Where an insurer acts as a claims administration service only but makes decisions regarding the adjudication of claims, computation and issuance of benefits it owes a duty to the insured to act in good faith as it was adjudicating claims and benefits.  As such, the traditional tort of intentional procurement of breach of contract is broad enough to capture bad faith actions by an adjuster that bring about the rejection of a meritorious claim for insurance benefits.</description>
								
								<author>stannock@pencilnecksoftware.com ()</author>
								<category>Newsletter: Insurance</category>
								
								<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.harpergrey.com/insurance/2012/02/article369/</guid>
								<pubDate>Wed, 15 Feb 2012 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
							</item>
						
							<item>
								<title>Fire insurance</title>
								<link>http://www.harpergrey.com/insurance/2012/01/article353/</link>
								
									<description>An appeal from an order dismissing applications to strike out third party claims.  The appeal was allowed.</description>
								
								<author>stannock@pencilnecksoftware.com ()</author>
								<category>Newsletter: Insurance</category>
								
								<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.harpergrey.com/insurance/2012/01/article353/</guid>
								<pubDate>Mon, 16 Jan 2012 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
							</item>
						
							<item>
								<title>Disability insurance</title>
								<link>http://www.harpergrey.com/insurance/2012/01/article352/</link>
								
									<description>An application by a long term disability insurer to dismiss a claim commenced by an insured on the basis that the claim was barred by the expiration of the limitation period.  The application was dismissed and costs awarded to the plaintiff.</description>
								
								<author>stannock@pencilnecksoftware.com ()</author>
								<category>Newsletter: Insurance</category>
								
								<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.harpergrey.com/insurance/2012/01/article352/</guid>
								<pubDate>Mon, 16 Jan 2012 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
							</item>
						
							<item>
								<title>Automobile insurance</title>
								<link>http://www.harpergrey.com/insurance/2012/01/article351/</link>
								
									<description>The plaintiff was successful in arguing that injuries sustained during an assault in which the assailants made use of his vehicle were injuries that arose directly from the use or operation of the vehicle.</description>
								
								<author>stannock@pencilnecksoftware.com ()</author>
								<category>Newsletter: Insurance</category>
								
								<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.harpergrey.com/insurance/2012/01/article351/</guid>
								<pubDate>Mon, 16 Jan 2012 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
							</item>
						
							<item>
								<title>Homeowner&apos;s insurance</title>
								<link>http://www.harpergrey.com/insurance/2012/01/article350/</link>
								
									<description>An application seeking a declaration that the defendant was an unnamed insured under the policy was dismissed when it was shown that the defendant, who was a relative of the insureds, maintained a separate and distinct household from the insureds.</description>
								
								<author>stannock@pencilnecksoftware.com ()</author>
								<category>Newsletter: Insurance</category>
								
								<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.harpergrey.com/insurance/2012/01/article350/</guid>
								<pubDate>Mon, 16 Jan 2012 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
							</item>
						
							<item>
								<title>Practice - Control of litigation</title>
								<link>http://www.harpergrey.com/insurance/2011/12/article339/</link>
								
									<description>Insured which advanced claim for both uninsured loss and insured loss in subrogated claim was allowed to have carriage and control of action.</description>
								
								<author>stannock@pencilnecksoftware.com ()</author>
								<category>Newsletter: Insurance</category>
								
								<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.harpergrey.com/insurance/2011/12/article339/</guid>
								<pubDate>Mon, 19 Dec 2011 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
							</item>
						
							<item>
								<title>Automobile insurance</title>
								<link>http://www.harpergrey.com/insurance/2011/12/article338/</link>
								
									<description>Application to add out-of-province insurer as a defendant by insured allowed notwithstanding the limitation period prescribed by s. 103 of the Insurance (Vehicle) Regulation had expired.</description>
								
								<author>stannock@pencilnecksoftware.com ()</author>
								<category>Newsletter: Insurance</category>
								
								<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.harpergrey.com/insurance/2011/12/article338/</guid>
								<pubDate>Mon, 19 Dec 2011 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
							</item>
						
							<item>
								<title>Homeowner&apos;s insurance</title>
								<link>http://www.harpergrey.com/insurance/2011/12/article337/</link>
								
									<description>Appeal by the insurer of the trial judge’s award of damages for breach of contract.  The insurer voided the policy and denied coverage on the basis that the insured’s installation of a woodstove constituted a material change in risk.  The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and found the woodstove as a material change in risk.</description>
								
								<author>stannock@pencilnecksoftware.com ()</author>
								<category>Newsletter: Insurance</category>
								
								<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.harpergrey.com/insurance/2011/12/article337/</guid>
								<pubDate>Mon, 19 Dec 2011 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
							</item>
						
							<item>
								<title>Commercial general liability insurance</title>
								<link>http://www.harpergrey.com/insurance/2011/12/article336/</link>
								
									<description>Successful application by the insured for a determination of whether the policy covered losses for product recall.</description>
								
								<author>stannock@pencilnecksoftware.com ()</author>
								<category>Newsletter: Insurance</category>
								
								<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.harpergrey.com/insurance/2011/12/article336/</guid>
								<pubDate>Mon, 19 Dec 2011 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
							</item>
						
							<item>
								<title>Disability insurance</title>
								<link>http://www.harpergrey.com/insurance/2011/11/article320/</link>
								
									<description>An insurer who provided long term disability benefits under a policy issued to the insured&apos;s former employer was entitled to rely on a release executed by the insured when she entered into a settlement with her former employer.</description>
								
								<author>stannock@pencilnecksoftware.com ()</author>
								<category>Newsletter: Insurance</category>
								
								<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.harpergrey.com/insurance/2011/11/article320/</guid>
								<pubDate>Tue, 15 Nov 2011 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
							</item>
						
					</channel>
				</rss>

