<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1" ?>
				<!-- RSS generated by Pencilneck CMS :: version 4.3 on 2012-02-22 06:52:00 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>Wed, 22 Feb 2012 18:52:00 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>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 06:00:00 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 06:00:00 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 06:00:00 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 06:00:00 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 06:00:00 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 06:00:00 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 06:00:00 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 06:00:00 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 06:00:00 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 06:00:00 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 06:00:00 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 06:00:00 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 06:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
							</item>
						
							<item>
								<title>Automobile insurance</title>
								<link>http://www.harpergrey.com/insurance/2011/11/article319/</link>
								
									<description>A rental vehicle company was found to be the proper defendant in an action involving one of its vehicles driven by an unidentified motorist.</description>
								
								<author>stannock@pencilnecksoftware.com ()</author>
								<category>Newsletter: Insurance</category>
								
								<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.harpergrey.com/insurance/2011/11/article319/</guid>
								<pubDate>Tue, 15 Nov 2011 06:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
							</item>
						
							<item>
								<title>Directors and officers liability insurance</title>
								<link>http://www.harpergrey.com/insurance/2011/11/article318/</link>
								
									<description>Coventree Inc. successfully obtained a declaration that an insurance policy issued by an insurer (&quot;Lloyds&quot;) was operative, despite the fact that notice of the claim had been provided to an earlier D&amp;O insurer where the Court held that Lloyds had waived the right to rely on the earlier notice.</description>
								
								<author>stannock@pencilnecksoftware.com ()</author>
								<category>Newsletter: Insurance</category>
								
								<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.harpergrey.com/insurance/2011/11/article318/</guid>
								<pubDate>Tue, 15 Nov 2011 06:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
							</item>
						
							<item>
								<title>Liability insurance</title>
								<link>http://www.harpergrey.com/insurance/2011/11/article317/</link>
								
									<description>The appeal by insurer Sovereign was dismissed, as the Court found that the notice provided to Sovereign by a co-defendant of the bankrupt insured was sufficient notice in accordance with the policy conditions for liability coverage.</description>
								
								<author>stannock@pencilnecksoftware.com ()</author>
								<category>Newsletter: Insurance</category>
								
								<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.harpergrey.com/insurance/2011/11/article317/</guid>
								<pubDate>Tue, 15 Nov 2011 06:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
							</item>
						
							<item>
								<title>Medical travel insurance</title>
								<link>http://www.harpergrey.com/insurance/2011/10/article298/</link>
								
									<description>An insured brought a claim against her travel insurer for medical expenses incurred while on vacation.  Her claim was allowed.</description>
								
								<author>stannock@pencilnecksoftware.com ()</author>
								<category>Newsletter: Insurance</category>
								
								<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.harpergrey.com/insurance/2011/10/article298/</guid>
								<pubDate>Wed, 12 Oct 2011 06:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
							</item>
						
							<item>
								<title>Property insurance</title>
								<link>http://www.harpergrey.com/insurance/2011/10/article297/</link>
								
									<description>An action by insureds to recover the proceeds from a fire insurance policy from their insurer after a fire, as well as aggravated and punitive damages for the insurer&apos;s refusal to pay.  The action was allowed.</description>
								
								<author>stannock@pencilnecksoftware.com ()</author>
								<category>Newsletter: Insurance</category>
								
								<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.harpergrey.com/insurance/2011/10/article297/</guid>
								<pubDate>Wed, 12 Oct 2011 06:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
							</item>
						
							<item>
								<title>Agents and brokers</title>
								<link>http://www.harpergrey.com/insurance/2011/10/article296/</link>
								
									<description>An insured brought an action against his insurance broker for failing to advise him about an exclusion in his policy.  The action was allowed and the insured was awarded damages.</description>
								
								<author>stannock@pencilnecksoftware.com ()</author>
								<category>Newsletter: Insurance</category>
								
								<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.harpergrey.com/insurance/2011/10/article296/</guid>
								<pubDate>Wed, 12 Oct 2011 06:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
							</item>
						
							<item>
								<title>Automobile insurance</title>
								<link>http://www.harpergrey.com/insurance/2011/10/article295/</link>
								
									<description>The defendant, Personal Insurance Co., brought a motion for summary judgement on the basis that personal injuries that plaintiff claimed for pursuant to a policy of insurance were not sustained in an “accident” within the meaning of the s. 2 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (Ontario Regulation 403/96).  The application was dismissed.</description>
								
								<author>stannock@pencilnecksoftware.com ()</author>
								<category>Newsletter: Insurance</category>
								
								<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.harpergrey.com/insurance/2011/10/article295/</guid>
								<pubDate>Wed, 12 Oct 2011 06:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
							</item>
						
							<item>
								<title>Automobile insurance</title>
								<link>http://www.harpergrey.com/insurance/2011/09/article282/</link>
								
									<description>Insurer of a bus operator was required to indemnify its insured for any amounts found to be owing to the plaintiffs as a result of its vicarious liability for an employee who had possession of a bus with consent, but who was not authorized to operate the bus at the time it was involved in an accident.</description>
								
								<author>stannock@pencilnecksoftware.com ()</author>
								<category>Newsletter: Insurance</category>
								
								<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.harpergrey.com/insurance/2011/09/article282/</guid>
								<pubDate>Tue, 13 Sep 2011 06:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
							</item>
						
							<item>
								<title>Life insurance</title>
								<link>http://www.harpergrey.com/insurance/2011/09/article281/</link>
								
									<description>Action for return of premiums paid of key man insurance policies dismissed.</description>
								
								<author>stannock@pencilnecksoftware.com ()</author>
								<category>Newsletter: Insurance</category>
								
								<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.harpergrey.com/insurance/2011/09/article281/</guid>
								<pubDate>Tue, 13 Sep 2011 06:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
							</item>
						
							<item>
								<title>Homeowner&apos;s insurance</title>
								<link>http://www.harpergrey.com/insurance/2011/09/article280/</link>
								
									<description>Insurer who provided title insurance policy was required to defend encroachment claim but not other claims concerning an alleged decrease in the value of the plaintiff&apos;s property.</description>
								
								<author>stannock@pencilnecksoftware.com ()</author>
								<category>Newsletter: Insurance</category>
								
								<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.harpergrey.com/insurance/2011/09/article280/</guid>
								<pubDate>Tue, 13 Sep 2011 06:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
							</item>
						
							<item>
								<title>Practice and procedure</title>
								<link>http://www.harpergrey.com/insurance/2011/09/article279/</link>
								
									<description>The appellant insurer sought leave to appeal the order of the Chambers Judge who dismissed it’s application to be added as a party or intervener in an underlying liability action in the Supreme Court of British Columbia.</description>
								
								<author>stannock@pencilnecksoftware.com ()</author>
								<category>Newsletter: Insurance</category>
								
								<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.harpergrey.com/insurance/2011/09/article279/</guid>
								<pubDate>Tue, 13 Sep 2011 06:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
							</item>
						
							<item>
								<title>Automobile insurance</title>
								<link>http://www.harpergrey.com/insurance/2011/08/article271/</link>
								
									<description>On appeal, the court found that statutory accident benefits for income replacement are not deductible from an income loss award in a tort claim where the plaintiff did not receive the benefits because of a statutory requirement to elect between income replacement and caregiver benefits.</description>
								
								<author>stannock@pencilnecksoftware.com ()</author>
								<category>Newsletter: Insurance</category>
								
								<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.harpergrey.com/insurance/2011/08/article271/</guid>
								<pubDate>Thu, 25 Aug 2011 06:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
							</item>
						
					</channel>
				</rss>

