Podleszanski v. Medley was a personal injury action arising out of a motor vehicle accident. Mr. Justice Alan W. Bryant ruled on a threshold motion brought by the defence while the jury was deliberating at trial. Holding that the plaintiff…
In Derksen v. 539938 Ontario Limited, the Supreme Court of Canada ordered both an auto and a CGL insurer to defend a personal injury action. It determined that there had been concurrent causes of the injuries, one covered by the…
AXA Insurance (Canada) v. Ani-Wall Concrete Forming Inc. involved the familiar “your work”, “your product” and “rip and tear” exclusions in a CGL policy. A concrete forming contractor, Ani-Wall Concrete Forming, was alleged to have used defective concrete in constructing…
Good news for auto insurers today from the Supreme Court. The insurers’ appeals in Citadel General Assurance Co. v. Vytlingam and Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. v. Herbison were successful. Both cases turned on the interpretation of the phrase, “arising directly or indirectly…
Some very good news for the plaintiff’s bar today, from the Court of Appeal: insurers’ offers to settle in MVA cases should contain “cushions” against the statutory deductibles. In Rider et al. v. Dydyk, the Court (Justices Jurianz, MacPherson and…
In a case that has already received a lot of attention from the insurance industry, the Court of Appeal held in Clarendon National Insurance et al. v. Candow that where it applies, s. 263 of the Insurance Act bars all tort…
In Kitchenham v. AXA Insurance Canada, the Divisional Court has considered the “deemed undertaking” rule (Rule 30.1.01) in the context of personal injury litigation. The decision of the Court was written by Associate Chief Justice Douglas Cunningham, concurred in by…
As if insurers needed more encouragement to tighten their procedures, the Court of Appeal today ordered Lombard Insurance to defend an action arising out of use of a car by an “excluded driver” because the insurer had not delivered a…
In McArdle v. Bugler, the Court of Appeal today held that a passenger in an uninsured vehicle, which had collided with another vehicle, was entitled to uninsured motorist insurance coverage applying to the second car. It held that the narrow…