Tag Archives: insurance law

By Jennifer R. Loeb

A recent BC Supreme Court decision in The Owners, Strata Plan 4249 v. Travelers Insurance Company of Canada confirms that an insurer defending itself in a first party policy lawsuit is entitled to issue third party notices for subrogation against those responsible for the loss.

By Jennifer R. Loeb

A recent BC Supreme Court decision in The Owners, Strata Plan 4249 v. Travelers Insurance Company of Canada confirms that an insurer defending itself in a first party policy lawsuit is entitled to issue third party notices for subrogation against those responsible for the loss.

By Jennifer R. Loeb

A recent BC Supreme Court decision in The Owners, Strata Plan 4249 v. Travelers Insurance Company of Canada confirms that an insurer defending itself in a first party policy lawsuit is entitled to issue third party notices for subrogation against those responsible for the loss.

By Glen Boswall

In PCL Constructors Canada Inc. and Flynn Canada Ltd. v. Allianz Global Risks US Insurance Company et. al. 2014 ONSC 7480, the Ontario Superior Court made this bold statement about a faulty workmanship exclusion. In this article, I will take you through the decision and highlight the controversial findings.

By David Buxton-Forman

In its recent decision in Hollowcore v. Visocchi, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice analyzed a rarely considered exclusion typically found in the errors and omissions (“E&O”) policies issued to engineers and architects. The exclusion removes cover for losses arising from the professional’s failure to complete drawings, specifications or schedules in time, unless the delay is the result of error or inaccuracy in the document preparation. It appears the Hollowcare judgment is the first reported judicial comment on this exclusion in Canada.

By Raman Johal, co-authored by Alexandra Andrisoi, Articled Student

We have previously written about the “new” BC Insurance Act and Insurance Regulation (the “BC Insurance Act“) which came into force on July 1, 2012 after many years (see our paper entitled: Making the Transition to the New World Order). The Alberta Insurance Act and Fair Practices Regulation (the “Alberta Insurance Act“) came into force on the same date. Both Acts contain very similar provisions and although there have not been many cases in BC decided under the new legislation, a recent Alberta case (Dhillon v. Anderson, 2014 ABQB 609) may be of assistance in determining how a BC Court would find on the issue of notice and limitation periods.

By Andrew Dixon

Last month, the Court of Appeal released an important judgment concerning the liability limit of motor vehicle lessors for accidents involving their lessees or drivers operating leased vehicles with the lessee’s permission.

Background

In British Columbia, the Motor Vehicle Act makes owners, lessees, and lessors of vehicles vicariously liable for accidents committed by drivers of leased vehicles. While a permitted driver or a lessee is liable for the full extant for any damages flowing from the accident, the Motor Vehicle Act limits the liability of lessors. The limit of liability is prescribed in the section 82.1 of the Insurance (Vehicle) Act (the “IV Act“) at $1 million (the “Lessor Cap”).

By Glen Boswall

In the recently decided case of Acciona Infrastructure Canada Inc. v. Allianz Global Risks US Insurance Co., the BC Supreme Court addressed some interesting and novel issues concerning Course of Construction (COC) insurance. Particularly, the Court,

• clarified the distinction between excluded defects and covered resulting physical damage within a building component;
• dealt with a novel argument that fortuity was not required to trigger coverage under typical COC policy wording; and
• was the first in Canada to interpret a design and workmanship exclusion wording that is becoming more common in COC policies.

By Cassandra Drake

In Ngo v. Luong, 2014 BCSC 516, the Supreme Court of British Columbia considered whether Saskatchewan’s Automobile Accident Insurance Act, R.S.S. 1978, c. A-35 (AAIA), as amended, is properly characterized as procedural or substantive law. The distinction would govern whether a British Columbia resident, injured in a Saskatchewan car accident, could avoid application of the AAIA by suing in her own province.