4 total
Court of Appeal declines to adopt the Stonewall Principle for allocating continuous loss insurance claims.
The appellant, Goodyear Canada Inc., appealed a motion judge's decision declining to adopt the American 'Stonewall Principle' into Ontario law.
Goodyear sought to hold its insurers liable for asbestos-related injuries occurring after 1985, when it could no longer obtain liability insurance for such risks.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the insurance policies unambiguously limited coverage to occurrences during the policy periods.
The Court held that adopting the Stonewall Principle would unfairly shift the risks of Goodyear's business decisions to the insurers, contrary to the express terms of the policies and public policy.
Successful defendant insurers awarded partial indemnity costs following dismissal of plaintiff's complex asbestos coverage motion.
Following a complex motion regarding insurance coverage for asbestos claims where the plaintiff was unsuccessful, the successful defendant insurers sought their costs.
The plaintiff argued for a reduction based on divided success on factual issues and refusal to admit facts.
The court rejected the plaintiff's arguments, finding the defendants were the clear winners and their refusal to admit facts was not unreasonable.
The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the defendants, making some reductions to specific bills for duplication of effort among multiple counsel, totaling approximately $546,887.
Plaintiff has standing to sue insurer for breach of trust judgment, but policy exclusions deny coverage.
The plaintiff, acting as receiver, obtained a judgment against a trust company for breach of trust.
The plaintiff then brought an action against the trust company's insurer to satisfy the judgment and moved for summary judgment.
The court found that the plaintiff had standing to sue the insurer based on an assignment of the right to sue, rather than under section 132(1) of the Insurance Act.
While the court determined that the policy initially provided coverage for the breach of trust, it ultimately held that coverage was excluded under policy provisions relating to dishonest acts and the gaining of an illegal advantage.
The court also found that the insurer's duty of good faith to the insured had been assigned to the plaintiff, leaving the issue of whether that duty was breached for trial.
Late change of counsel does not justify reopening evidentiary record on motion.
In a coverage dispute arising from a judgment against a trust company, the defendant insurers sought to introduce additional evidence shortly before the hearing of a summary judgment motion after changing counsel.
The court considered whether the evidentiary record could be reopened to permit new affidavits, discovery answers, and documentary material.
The court held that a late change of counsel does not entitle a party to revise litigation strategy or add evidence contrary to established timetables and prior procedural orders.
Absent a satisfactory explanation for failing to include the evidence earlier, leave should not be granted.
The court permitted only a publicly available judicial endorsement already agreed to by the parties and refused all other proposed additions to the record.
