$50,000 punitive damages for refusing to pay a fire loss.
On August 17, 2011, the insureds successfully sued their insurer in the British Columbia Supreme Court for losses suffered in a fire, as well as aggravated and punitive damages for the insurer’s refusal to pay, in Sidhu v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co. In the early hours of February 7, 2005, the Sidhu’s family home was damaged by a fire. The plaintiff, Hardip Sidhu, was in the master bedroom with his wife and infant son before the fire started. He asked them to leave shortly before he heard something hit the bedroom window. He got dressed and looked around. His wife also looked outside...
read moreManulife loses “want of prosecution” application.
On May 30, 2011, the BC Supreme Court decided that Manufacturers Life Insurance Company (“Manulife”), successor to the Aetna Life Insurance Co. of Canada (“Aetna”) was unsuccessful in its application for an order dismissing an applicant’s action for want of prosecution. The decision is reported at: Toor v Aetna Life Ins. Co., 2011 BCSC 691. In 1975 the applicant, Harbans Toor purchased a policy of long-term disability insurance from Excelsior Life and the policy was eventually acquired by Manulife. In the action, Mr. Toor claimed, among other things, for benefits under that...
read moreThe significant role of expert evidence.
When presenting a claim at trial dealing with future loss it is vital to have appropriate expert evidence to justify sought damages. Failure to do so can result in a dismissal of the sought damages even if they are unopposed. Reasons for judgement released May 6, 2011 highlight the importance of medico-legal evidence in personal injury trials. In Moore v. Briggs the plaintiff suffered a fractured skull (fractured left temporal bone) and a brain injury in a 2003 assault. The plaintiff sued those he claimed were responsible for the assault. One of the defendant’s did not respond to the...
read moreInsurer’s failure to “follow up” may attract punitive damages.
On May 4, 2010, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal held in Kings Mutual Insurance Co. v. Ackermann, that by not following up on all the evidence relevant to the claim, withholding critical information from the adjuster engaged to investigate the claim and allowing the adjuster to present the results of the investigation in a partisan, biased and un-objective manner, the insurer’s actions were such that an award of punitive damages was rationally required to punish the insurer’s conduct. The insureds were insured for damage to their dairy barn for the peril of a “windstorm”, among other...
read more$25,000 damages awarded for mental distress.
On September 28, 2009, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice released its decision in McQueen v. Echelon General Insurance Co., [2009] O.J. No. 3965. The Court made a substantial award of mental distress damages against the insurer, Echelon, for denial of benefits in the amount of $25,000.00. BACKGROUND This case arose from a claim for statutory accident benefits and damages for breach of the insurer’s duty to act in good faith. The plaintiff sustained injuries in a rollover motor vehicle accident. At the time of the accident, she was unemployed and received benefits under the Ontario...
read moreManulife tried to avoid its own policy, and failed.
On August 17, 2009, The BC Supreme Court held that as between the limitation period in an insurance policy and the limitation period set out in Section 22(1) of the Insurance Act of British Columbia, the limitation period in the policy prevails so long as it is not shorter than that prescribed by Section 22(1). In Colgur v. Manufacturers Life Ins. Co., 2009 BCSC 1125, the insurance company, Manulife, applied for a dismissal of the Ms. Colgur’s claim for long-term disability . Ms. Colgur was employed by the Royal Bank of Canada as a customer service representative....
read more
