Colin Empke

The plaintiff, injured in an automobile accident, settled with the at-fault driver and then claimed the balance of her damages from her underinsured motorist protection insurer, Coseco Insurance Company.

Coseco moved for summary judgment, arguing the action was statute-barred by the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court dismissed Coseco's motion, finding that earlier communications from the plaintiff's counsel were merely notice of an intended claim, not a "demand for indemnification" that would trigger the limitation period.

The limitation period was held to have commenced only after a formal request for indemnification with full particulars was submitted.

The applicants sought a declaratory order requiring the respondent insurer to defend an action they brought against an insured financial planner.

The insurer had denied coverage because the insured did not purchase the optional mutual fund coverage under his professional liability policy.

The court dismissed the application, holding that the applicants, as non-parties to the insurance contract, lacked standing to enforce the insurer's duty to defend.

Furthermore, the court rejected the applicants' interpretation of the policy, finding that coverage for financial planning advice did not extend to products for which coverage was not purchased.