Canadian Insurance Law Blog - Page 100 of 116 -

The Proof of Loss contained a clause which dealt with the transfer of rights of recovery to the insurer. The Court held that even if the clause amounted to an assignment in law, there was no effective assignment of rights as there was no consideration.

22. August 2005 0

Posted by Harper Grey

Langdon v. Hudson Bay Transport Co., [2005] S.J. No. 599, Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench

The Court granted the application under Rule 18A for payment of life insurance funds to a beneficiary determined to have been designated as “irrevocable” after finding that the requirements of s. 49 of the Insurance Act had been substantially complied with

17. August 2005 0

Posted by Harper Grey

Re: Dahl, [2005] B.C.J. No. 3043, British Columbia Supreme Court

The Court held that the legal cost of obtaining a court order for the appointment of a guardian of property and person for a person impaired catastrophically in a motor vehicle accident, was a “rehabilitation benefit” payable by the person’s insurer under the Ontario Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule

10. August 2005 0

Posted by Harper Grey

Stukic (Litigation guardian of) v. Personal Insurance Co. of Canada, [2005] O.J. No. 3325, Ontario Superior Court of Justice

The insured under a disability insurance policy (“Brown”) was successful in obtaining a declaration that he was totally disabled from employment as defined by the policy issued by his disability insurer (“Mutual Life”) where the Court concluded that Brown had a “medically determinable physical impairment due to injury” for a period of approximately two years

08. August 2005 0

Posted by Harper Grey

Brown v. Mutual Life Assurance Co. of Canada, [2005] A.J. No. 1003, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench

The Court held that the insured was entitled to income replacement benefits under the Ontario Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule. The insured’s disability was to be viewed in the context of her competitiveness in the existing marketplace.

05. August 2005 0

Posted by Harper Grey

Neumeyer v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co., [2005] O.J. No. 3314, Ontario Superior Court of Justice

The Court held that the insured was obligated to repay long term disability benefits to the extent that the insured had received compensation under the Workers Compensation Act in connection with the “same disability”. The Court also held that the insured was entitled to benefits to the age of 65.

05. August 2005 0

Posted by Harper Grey

McGill v. Worthing, [2005] B.C.J. No. 1759, British Columbia Supreme Court

The action of Canadian Universities Reciprocal Insurance Exchange (“CURIE”) against CGU Insurance Co. of Canada (“CGU”) seeking equitable contribution between insurers was dismissed, where the Court held that none of the parties found liable in the underlying action were entitled to coverage under the CGU policy

05. August 2005 0

Posted by Harper Grey

Canadian Universities Reciprocal Insurance Exchange v. CGU Insurance Co. of Canada, [2005] O.J. No. 3375, Ontario Superior Court of Justice

The Court held that the insured’s failure, on an application for life and disability benefits, to disclose a history of high blood pressure, constituted a misrepresentation of a material fact. The contract of insurance was thus voidable by the insurer under s. 41 of the Insurance Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 266.

04. August 2005 0

Posted by Harper Grey

Fischer v. Clarica Life Insurance Co., [2005] B.C.J. No. 1763, British Columbia Supreme Court

The Court held that the insurer was not liable under s. 132 of the Ontario Insurance Act with respect to a damage award which had been returned unsatisfied as against its insured. The insured’s lack of co-operation with the insurer in not responding to the insurer’s letters amounted to a substantial and material breach of the insurance policy.

28. July 2005 0

Posted by Harper Grey

Thompson v. ING Halifax, [2005] O.J. No. 3250, Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Where an Insured is involved in a single vehicle motor vehicle accident and is found to have a blood alcohol level of 300 mg of ethyl alcohol in 100 milliliters of blood; absent any reasonable explanation for the accident, the Insured will be found to have been operating his motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol and his automobile insurance will be void

27. July 2005 0

Posted by Harper Grey

Co-operators General Insurance Co. v. Mayer, [2005] A.J. No. 1061, Alberta Provincial Court

Search Anything