4 total
Insurer successfully relied on motorized vehicle exclusion to deny coverage for fire caused by tenant's car repairs.
The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment in their direct action against the defendant insurer under s. 132(1) of the Insurance Act.
The plaintiffs had previously obtained a consent judgment against their tenant, who negligently caused a fire while repairing his automobile in the attached garage.
The defendant insurer denied coverage under the tenant's policy, relying on a motorized vehicle exclusion.
The court found that the omnibus exclusions, including the motorized vehicle exclusion, applied to the Tenants Legal Liability coverage.
The court also held that the tenant's maintenance of his vehicle constituted 'use' of a motorized vehicle and that there was an unbroken chain of causation between the maintenance and the fire.
The plaintiffs' claim was dismissed.
Appeal dismissed; snow removal business not vicariously liable for intentional assault by independent contractor.
The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing her claim against the respondent for vicarious liability.
The appellant was assaulted by a snowblower operator contracted by the respondent.
The trial judge found that the operator was an independent contractor and that his intentional tortious actions were outside the scope of his contract.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual determinations regarding the independent contractor relationship and the lack of vicarious liability.
The court dismissed an insurer's motion for further documentary discovery due to its decade-long delay and the principle of proportionality.
The plaintiffs, Edward Horsefield and Edward Horsefield as Estate Trustee, sought to enforce a judgment against Economical Mutual Insurance Company under section 132 of the Insurance Act, after Economical denied coverage to their tenant, Ian Horsefield, for fire damage.
Economical brought a motion for further production of documents.
The Master dismissed Economical's motion, finding that the insurer had been uninvolved for nearly 10 years and that granting further production would unduly delay the summary judgment motion.
The Master emphasized the principles of proportionality and timely resolution of cases, concluding that the requested documents' value was uncertain and would cause undue delay.
Insurer has duty to defend parents against third-party claim for negligent supervision of their child.
The minor plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident.
Her mother sued the driver and owner, who then issued a third-party claim against the plaintiff's parents for negligent supervision.
The parents' homeowners' insurer refused to defend the third-party claim, relying on an exclusion clause for bodily injury to any person residing in the household.
The application judge declared the insurer had a duty to defend.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the insurer's appeal, holding that the exclusion clause must be interpreted narrowly and only applies to direct claims between family members, not indirect third-party claims for contribution and indemnity.
