Caroline Gronke

The applicant lessor sought a declaration that it was entitled to third party liability coverage under an automobile insurance policy issued to its lessee, and that the cancellation of the policy by the lessee's agent was ineffective against it.

The court applied the principles of insurance contract interpretation and found that the policy unambiguously provided only property damage coverage to the applicant as a lienholder, as no OPCF 5 endorsement was issued.

The application was dismissed, and the court found it unnecessary to determine the validity of the policy cancellation.

The defendant insurer brought a motion to dismiss an indemnification action brought by another insurer arising from a motor vehicle accident involving insured property.

The plaintiff insurer had denied coverage to its insured and was later found liable in separate litigation, after which it sought statutory indemnity from the other insurer whose insured driver was allegedly at fault.

The court considered whether the claim for contribution and indemnity was barred under s. 18 of the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court held that the plaintiff insurer was an alleged wrongdoer in the underlying action and that its indemnity claim fell within the contribution and indemnity regime governed by s. 18.

Because the plaintiff did not bring a third-party claim or otherwise commence its indemnity claim within two years of being served with the original statement of claim, the action was statute-barred.