One judge’s clarity is another’s ambiguity.

On June 4, 2013, the BC Court of Appeal reversed a trial decision in McLean v. Canadian Premier Life Insurance, 2013 BCCA 264,and in an unanimous decision allowed the appeal and held that the insured was entitled to the $1 million benefit provided by the policy. The McLean appeal decision is an interesting example of how one judge’s clarity is another’s ambiguity. The trial judge found that “the words of the contract are clear and unambiguous” and held that the loss did not come within the policy terms. Specifically, holding that at the time of the loss the deceased insured was not a...

New Client Contact Information

  Name _______________________________________________________________________________ Street Address _______________________________________________________________________ City _________________________________________ Province ______  Postal Code _____________ Phone (home) __________________ (mobile) ___________________ (office) ____________________ Email _______________________________________________________________________________ Date of Accident ____________________________ Type of Accident (check one)    [ ]Motor Vehicle Accident    [ ]Slip and Fall    [ ]Other Injuries...

Insurer who honours policy may still breach the duty of good faith.

On February 25, 2013, the Ontario Court of Appeal substantially allowed an appeal from a lower court decision striking out numerous claims in a proposed class action relating to the sale and administration of four types of life insurance policies. In Kang v. Sun Life, 2013 ONCA 118, the Court of Appeal held that plaintiffs’ claims for breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing and for deceit and fraud were not mere reiterations of the plaintiffs’ claim for negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation and should be allowed to stand. Their claim for breach of contract was based on...

Disability Insurance

Employer ordered to pay $100,000 punitive damages.

On January 31, 2013, the British Columbia Court awarded an employee $100,000.00 in punitive damages as a result of the defendant employer’s conduct, which was found to be malicious and vindictive, in breach of its obligations of good faith and fair dealing in the manner in which the employee was terminated. The employer’s egregious conduct continued “unbroken” throughout the legal proceeding. The Court awarded punitive damages against the employer to punish, denounce, and deter future actions, which included: 1. The employer refused to pay the employee’s outstanding wages unless a release...