4 total
Appeal dismissed; application judge did not err in finding no breach of duty to cooperate.
The appellant insurer appealed a decision finding it liable under an insurance policy.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the application judge did not err in proceeding on an agreed factual basis, finding no substantial breach of the insured's duty to cooperate, and interpreting the curative provision to permit notice in the next policy period absent prejudice to the insurer.
The court ordered an insurer to fully indemnify a land surveying company for a $3.2 million settlement.
The applicant, a land surveying company, sought indemnification from the respondent insurance company under a professional liability insurance policy for a settlement payment of $3,200,000.00 relating to the Halton Claim.
The respondent had already paid $5,000,000.00 under the policy for an unrelated Port Lands Claim.
The court determined that the Halton Claim fell within the policy's coverage, that it was covered under the first policy period based on when the applicant first received notice of the claim, and that the applicant did not breach its duty to cooperate with the insurer.
The court ordered full indemnification of the settlement amount plus costs.
Motion to convert application to action granted due to complex issues and disputed material facts.
The applicants commenced an application seeking declarations for insurance coverage and damages following a fire that destroyed their home.
The respondent insurer, who had denied the claim and voided the policy for alleged misrepresentation, brought a motion to convert the application into an action.
The court granted the motion, finding that the proceeding involved multiple issues requiring a trial, including material facts in dispute, credibility issues, and a negligence claim against the insurance broker that could not be bifurcated without consent.
The court declined to dismiss an application for declaratory relief regarding insurance indemnification but narrowed its scope.
Allstate Insurance Company of Canada brought a motion seeking to dismiss Jamie Patino's application as premature or an abuse of process, or alternatively, to narrow its scope.
Patino's application sought declarations regarding Allstate's duty to defend and indemnify him following a motor vehicle accident, particularly concerning an alleged material misrepresentation about vehicle use.
The court denied Allstate's motion to dismiss, finding the application neither premature nor an abuse of process if strictly limited to specific legal questions.
The court ordered that the application would focus on whether Allstate could deny indemnification despite not voiding the policy, and whether a finding of misrepresentation would alter this.
Leave was granted for Patino to amend his application to seek declarations regarding his right to counsel of choice and to direct his defence in a related action.
