Lawrence McRae

The plaintiff was involved in two motor vehicle accidents 11 months apart.

He settled his claim against the first tortfeasor and provided a standard release.

The identity of the second tortfeasor was unknown, so the plaintiff sued his own insurer under the unidentified motorist coverage for damages arising exclusively from the second collision.

The insurer brought a third party claim against the first tortfeasor for contribution and indemnity.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision to strike the third party claim, finding that the insurer would only be held liable for the degree of damages attributable to the second accident and therefore had no right to seek contribution or indemnity from the first tortfeasor.

The plaintiffs were injured in a motor vehicle accident and sued the driver, the owner, and the owner's business.

The plaintiffs alleged negligent operation of the vehicle as well as negligent business practices, including negligent training, supervision, and entrustment.

The automobile insurer accepted its duty to defend, but brought a motion to compel the commercial general liability (CGL) insurer to also defend the action based on the negligent business practice claims.

The motion judge found the CGL insurer had a duty to defend.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal reversed the decision, holding that the negligent supervision and entrustment claims were derivative of the negligent use and operation of the motor vehicle.

As such, they fell squarely within the CGL policy's automobile exclusion clause, and the CGL insurer had no duty to defend.