David Murray

The plaintiff was struck by an uninsured driver and sought coverage under the uninsured and underinsured provisions of an automobile insurance policy issued to his child's mother.

The insurer denied coverage, arguing the plaintiff did not meet the definition of 'spouse' as the couple had ceased living in a conjugal relationship.

The court applied a holistic approach to the definition of 'spouse' for parents of a child, finding that living under the same roof was not strictly required.

The court concluded that the parties had not formed a settled intention to end their relationship and were living in a conjugal relationship of some permanence at the time of the accident.

The plaintiff was found entitled to coverage under the policy.

Allstate appealed an insurance arbitrator's decision holding it responsible for paying statutory accident benefits to a claimant.

The arbitrator found that Allstate failed to notify Wawanesa of a priority dispute within 90 days of receiving a completed application, and failed to satisfy the test for late notice.

Allstate argued the 90-day period had not commenced because the application was signed by the claimant's aunt, not the claimant.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, holding that the arbitrator correctly interpreted 'signed application' to include signatures by non-claimants, and reasonably concluded that Allstate had sufficient information to commence its priority investigation but failed to act diligently.

The statutory third party, Economical Mutual Insurance Company, brought a motion for leave to serve and file a jury notice after the close of pleadings.

The parties had previously entered into a consent judgment settling the plaintiffs' damages and agreeing that the remaining insurance coverage issues would be tried by a judge.

The court found that the third party's motion was a tactical attempt to avoid the consequences of the consent judgment and have the issue of the defendant's intent tried by a jury.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that granting leave would rewrite the terms of the consent judgment and cause substantive prejudice to the responding insurer.

Following a prior ruling determining vehicle ownership and insurance coverage arising from a fatal motor vehicle accident, the court addressed the costs consequences of that decision.

The court had previously found that both spouses were owners of the vehicle and that their respective insurers were each liable for $1,000,000 in coverage rather than sharing a single limit.

In this costs decision, the successful plaintiffs and certain insurers sought partial indemnity costs of the motion and related proceedings.

The court held that the unsuccessful defendants’ denial of coverage necessitated the involvement of multiple insurers and justified costs awards in favour of the successful parties.

Joint and several costs were ordered against the unsuccessful parties in specified all‑inclusive amounts.

The appellant insurer appealed an arbitral award determining it was the priority insurer required to pay statutory accident benefits to a claimant.

The arbitrator found the claimant was principally dependent on her mother and stepfather, triggering coverage under the mother's policy.

The appellant argued the arbitrator erred in calculating the claimant's means and needs, specifically regarding earning capacity, the value of housekeeping services, and the use of government statistics versus individualized assessments.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the arbitrator made no reviewable errors and correctly applied the dependency test.