Simple assertion of contemplated litigation doesn’t cut it.
On August 6, 2015, the BC Supreme Court effectively dismantled an ICBC claim for litigation privilege in Buettner v. Gatto. The plaintiff in that case was injured in a collision and advanced a claim for damages. The plaintiff retained counsel. Liability was initially admitted and then denied by ICBC. The plaintiff brought an application for production of various relevant documents and ICBC refused disclosure on the grounds that litigation was reasonably contemplated once the plaintiff retained counsel. The Court rejected this finding this position was based on little more than a bare...
read moreBad faith claim leads to broad disclosure obligations.
Shirley Wade suffered injuries as a result of a motor vehicle accident in 2005. In 2008, her insurer, the Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company, stopped paying her disability benefits. Wade started a lawsuit for breach of contract and bad faith against Wawanesa. During the discovery of Wawanesa’s representative on the bad faith claim, counsel for Wawanesa refused four requests for information, as follows: 1. During the 5 years before Wawanesa terminated Wade’s benefits, provide the number of policy holders who received income replacement benefits like Wade, provide the average length of time...
read moreAppeal Court reduces punitive damages for bad faith.
On June 19, 2015, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal reduced awards of extra-contractual damages made on March 21, 2013. The trial decision of a Justice of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench assessed punitive damages totalling $5,000,000 against two insurers in a recent trial decision, Branco v. American Home Assurance et. al., 2013 SKQB 98. In rendering a decision in which he found the insurers’ treatment of the insured to be “calculated and abhorrent”, Justice Acton sent a message to all insurers doing business in Canada: “It is hoped that this award will gain the attention of the...
read moreJudge: insurer’s expert “careless” if not “deceptive”.
In Hendry v. Ellis, 2015 BCSC 1186, the plaintiff was injured in a collision and sued for damages. The defendant’s insurer retained a doctor who minimized the connection between the plaintiff’s complaints and the collision. At trial, through cross examination, the doctor made various admissions beyond the borders of the opinion contained in the report. In criticizing the physician’s opinion as “careless” if not outright “deceptive” Mr. Justice Jenkins provided the following reasons: [26] Expert evidence tendered at trial was that the duration of soft tissue pain is considered to be 12...
read moreManulife tried to use maternity leave to reduce bonus, and lost.
On April 22, 2015, the Supreme Court of British Columbia ordered Manulife to pay damages of over $140,000 to a recruiter of financial advisors in a wrongful dismissal suit. The decision is noteworthy in that the court refused to allow Manulife to use its employee’s maternity leave as a reason to reduce her bonus payment. In Sowden v. Manulife Canada Ltd., the court ruled that Manulife owes damages to former employee Janice Sowden after she was dismissed in a “corporate restructuring”. In an earlier decision the court ruled, after a summary trial, that Sowden was entitled to...
read more
