Barry Berge Papazian

The court considered whether an insurer could deny a life insurance claim based on a change in insurability between application and policy delivery, even if the change was unknown to both parties, and whether such a denial could occur beyond the two-year incontestability period in the Insurance Act.

The court held that section 180(1)(c) of the Insurance Act does not permit an insurer to void a policy for an undisclosed change in insurability beyond the two-year period set by section 184(2).

The court granted summary judgment in favour of the plaintiff, finding the insurance was in effect at the time of death.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to amend the statement of claim, seeking to add a new defendant and remove an existing one.

The court identified numerous procedural deficiencies in the motion record, including an improper basis for bringing the motion in writing (expectation of unopposed vs. consent), lack of affidavit of service for the proposed new party, use of antiquated terminology ("style of cause"), and issues with the consent form and document filing.

The motion was not granted at this time and was adjourned with specific directions for the plaintiff to correct the record and ensure proper service on all parties, including the proposed new defendant.

This is an appeal from the dismissal of a claim for negligence and breach of contract against insurance brokers.

The appellant, owner of a commercial property destroyed by fire, alleged the brokers failed to secure adequate reconstruction cost insurance, leading to underinsurance and a co-insurance penalty.

The trial judge found the brokers discharged their duty by advising the appellant to obtain expert appraisal for reconstruction costs and that the appellant was a sophisticated client.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, finding no error in the application of the duty of care or contractual obligations, and no reasonable apprehension of bias.

The appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiff, owner of a commercial property destroyed by fire, sued its insurance broker and brokerage firm for negligence and breach of contract, alleging underinsurance due to inadequate advice on reconstruction costs.

The court found that the defendants met the standard of care by advising the plaintiff's principal, a sophisticated client, to obtain a professional reconstruction estimate and by providing documents with co-insurance warnings.

The court also found no causation, as the plaintiff was motivated by cost-saving and would likely not have followed advice for a professional estimate.

Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to mitigate damages by not diligently rebuilding a property of like kind and quality, thus not qualifying for replacement cost coverage.

The action was dismissed.