3 total
Losses from unauthorized online banking transactions are not covered under a standard 'Forgery or Alteration' insurance clause.
The applicants, victims of extensive fraud involving forged cheques and unauthorized online banking, sought a declaration that their insurer, State Farm, was obligated to provide coverage.
While State Farm accepted coverage for losses from forged cheques, the central issue was whether losses from unauthorized online banking transactions fell under the policy's "Forgery or Alteration" clause.
The court determined that online banking transactions were analogous to a direct transfer of money, not a promise to pay money, and therefore did not fall within the scope of the "Forgery or Alteration" clause.
The application for coverage of online banking losses was dismissed.
The court awarded full indemnity costs to successful plaintiffs who were forced to sue an insurer that wrongfully denied coverage.
The plaintiffs, having successfully obtained summary judgment against the defendant insurer for coverage, sought full indemnity costs.
The court granted full indemnity costs, finding that insurance companies wrongfully denying coverage should fully compensate successful parties for enforcing that coverage, citing the unique nature of insurance contracts.
The court also found the hourly rates of plaintiffs' counsel to be reasonable and awarded $72,000 in costs.
An insurer is liable for damages and costs where a jury finds the insured's negligence in choosing an unsafe unloading area caused a child's injuries.
The plaintiffs, a minor and his litigation guardian, sought summary judgment against the defendant insurer to enforce a prior jury award for negligence against the minor's father, who was insured by the defendant.
The insurer denied coverage, arguing the negligence did not arise from the use or operation of a motor vehicle and brought a cross-motion for summary judgment.
The court found the jury's particularization of negligence (unsafe unloading area) established a clear nexus between the father's use of the vehicle and the child's injuries, distinguishing it from cases of mere incidental use.
The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs, holding the insurer liable for damages and costs.
