Sheldon Arnold Gilbert

The plaintiff, a truck driver operating a tractor-trailer as an independent contractor in Florida, was struck by an underinsured vehicle with only $20,000 in coverage.

He sought underinsured motorist coverage under two insurance policies: his personal automobile policy with AllState and the fleet coverage through ACE INA for the commercial vehicle.

Both policies contained optional Family Protection Coverage endorsements for underinsured vehicle coverage.

The motion judge granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, finding that AllState was obliged to provide underinsured coverage while ACE INA was not.

AllState appealed, and the plaintiff cross-appealed the ACE INA decision.

The Court of Appeal allowed AllState's appeal and dismissed the cross-appeal, holding that neither insurer was obliged to provide underinsured coverage for the heavy commercial vehicle operated by the plaintiff.

The appellant, TD Home and Auto Insurance Company, appealed a motion judge's decision granting summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs' action against the vehicle owner and granting a rule 21 motion determining that a passenger was not entitled to indemnity under the owner's insurance policy.

The passenger had seized control of the vehicle's steering wheel during an argument, causing a collision that injured one of the plaintiffs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the rule 20 appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's conclusion that the vehicle owner was not negligent and was not vicariously liable under the Highway Traffic Act because the passenger took control of the vehicle without consent.

However, the Court allowed the rule 21 appeal, setting aside the determination regarding insurance coverage due to insufficient reasoning and procedural defects.

The Court reduced the costs award accordingly.

The appellant insurer appealed a motion judge's decision that it was obliged to provide underinsured motorist coverage to the respondent truck driver under an OPCF 44R Family Protection Coverage endorsement on his personal automobile policy.

The respondent operated a tractor owned by his corporation and leased to a transport company under fleet insurance.

He suffered serious injuries when struck by an underinsured driver in Florida.

The Court of Appeal adjourned the appeal sine die to allow the parties to enlarge the record with evidence regarding how Ontario-based truck drivers obtain underinsured coverage, recognizing that a ruling could affect thousands of commercial vehicle drivers and their families.

The defendant Allstate Insurance Company of Canada brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for property damage following a house fire.

The fire was intentionally set by the plaintiff's husband, a co-insured, who was convicted of attempted murder against the plaintiff.

Allstate relied on an exclusionary clause in the homeowners' policy for loss or damage resulting from any intentional or criminal act by an insured person.

The court, bound by Supreme Court of Canada precedent, found the exclusionary clause unambiguous and applicable, despite acknowledging its harsh and inequitable result for the innocent plaintiff.

The court also dismissed the plaintiff's argument regarding mental capacity, finding the expert report unreliable and the act clearly intentional.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of Allstate, dismissing the plaintiff's claim.

The court, however, exercised its discretion to dispense with costs, criticizing Allstate's corporate conduct in enforcing such an inequitable clause against a victim of domestic violence.