S. Atkinson

The plaintiffs were injured in a motor vehicle accident in Texas while driving a rental vehicle.

The at-fault driver was underinsured.

The plaintiffs settled their claims, leaving a priority dispute between two insurers providing OPCF 44R family protection coverage: Liberty (insuring the plaintiff's employer) and Unifund (insuring the plaintiff's spouse).

Liberty brought a motion for summary judgment arguing its policy did not respond.

The court held that under section 2.2.3 of OAP 1, the Liberty policy did not cover the rental vehicle because the plaintiff was an employee of the named corporate insured.

Consequently, Unifund was the sole first loss insurer.

The action against Liberty was dismissed.

This action involved a subrogated claim by a landlord's insurer against its tenant for fire damage.

The matter came before the court as a special case to determine if the plaintiff landlord was precluded from proceeding with the subrogated action due to the terms of the lease.

The court analyzed the lease provisions, particularly the landlord's covenant to insure and the tenant's contribution to premiums, in light of established Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence on subrogation rights against tenants.

The court found that the lease did not contain clear, express, and unambiguous language to contract out of the general rule barring subrogation, despite clauses referring to the tenant's liability for negligence.

The special case question was answered in the affirmative, barring the subrogated claim and leading to the dismissal of the action.