Legal Update
Bad Faith
Personal Injury
Insurance
Evidence
Most Recent Articles
Sun Life ordered to pay $600,000 death benefit on “replaced” policy.
On November 22, 2018, the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench ordered an insurance company to pay a $600,000 death benefit to the 2 surviving children and adult partner of a deceased man, Jeffery Moss. In Moss v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada, [2018] A.J. No. 1383, 2018 ABQB 953, the deceased’s daughter, Daniella Moss, brought a summary trial application seeking a declaration as to the validity of two insurance policies. She was one of the beneficiaries of the two life insurance policies on her father’s life. The deceased...
read moreInsurer may be sued for bad faith negotiations.
On May 17, 2018, the Manitoba Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from an insurance company’s unsuccessful application for summary judgment to dismiss a claim brought by its insured. In 3746292 Manitoba Ltd. v. Intact Insurance Co., 2018 MBCA 59, the insured was the owner of a mixed-use property in downtown Winnipeg consisting of residential apartments and commercial space. In 2010, an accidental fire caused significant damage. A dispute arose over the cost of repairs and the amount of a co-insurance penalty. The...
read moreDrunk teenager injured in stolen car cannot sue garage.
On May 11, 2018, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that a commercial car garage did not owe a duty of care to a person who was injured in a car he had stolen from the garage. In Rankin (Rankin’s Garage & Sales) v. J.J., J.J., a teenager, suffered a catastrophic brain injury in a motor vehicle collision. He sued Rankin’s Garage & Sales, among other parties, for negligence because the car that he and another teenager stole from the garage had been left unlocked with the keys in the ashtray. At trial, the jury found multiple...
read moreManulife ordered to pay disability benefits to brain injured man.
On April 19, 2018, Ontario’s highest court ordered Manulife to pay long-term disability benefits to a man who suffered a traumatic brain injury and a severe back injury during a company-sponsored event on April 16, 2005. In MacIvor v. Pitney Bowes Inc., [2018] O.J. No. 2105, 2018 ONCA 381, the Ontario Court of Appeal (“ONCA”), reversed a trial decision and found for Lenard MacIvor. Mr. MacIvor suffered a traumatic brain injury and a significant musculoskeletal injury during a company-sponsored event in Costa Rica....
read moreICBC punished with costs for “improper act”.
On February 20, 2018, the BC Supreme Court assessed costs against ICBC in Garayt v. Deneumoustier, 2018 BCSC 295, for failing to abide by “very clear case law”. By way of background, when a lawyer in British Columbia receives trust funds a $15 “trust administration fee” must be assessed. For a description of the fee program, click here. This is a mandatory assessment. So, when a plaintiff retains a lawyer to resolve a dispute with ICBC this fee needs to be paid. If the plaintiff is...
read moreTravel insurer ordered to pay for emergency surgery.
On July 28, 2017, the Supreme Court of BC ordered an insurance company to pay for a British Columbia man’s emergency heart surgery while travelling. The court held, in Fletcher v. Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Company of Canada, 2017 BCSC 1330, that the medical expenses Paul Fletcher incurred while outside of Canada were not excluded by the policy. The court made this finding after noting that Mr. Fletcher was advised by his treating physicians that: a) his condition was stable; b) he was safe to travel; and c) further...
read moreSurveillance prohibited during court-ordered medical examination.
On June 28, 2017, a judge of the BC Supreme Court prohibited a defendant from conducting video surveillance of a plaintiff who is compelled to attend a defence medical examination in a personal injury lawsuit. Rule 7-6(1) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules allows compulsory examinations where the physical or mental condition of a person is in issue in an action. For many years defendants, or their insurers, have used these examinations as opportunities to conduct covert surveillance of plaintiffs in personal injury and...
read moreExpert evidence not needed if common sense prevails.
On June 23, 2017, the BC Supremc Court considered the use, and overuse, of expert evidence in personal injury litigation. Truax v. Hyrb, 2017 BCSC 1052, was an action arising out of a motor vehicle accident in which fault was at issue. The defendant brought an application seeking a dismissal of the lawsuit and argued that in failing to adduce expert engineering evidence an adverse inference should be drawn against the plaintiff. In rejecting this argument, Mr. Justice Dley provided the following comments about the role...
read moreManulife pays 69 MILLION DOLLARS to shut down class action before trial.
After almost eight years of litigation, a securities class action against Canada’s largest life insurance company settled for $69 million. In Ironworkers Ontario Pension Fund v Manulife Financial, 2017 ONSC 2669, the Ontario court approved the payment of honoraria to the representative plaintiffs, the payment of class counsel contingency-based legal fees, and the payment of a preliminary commission to a third-party litigation funder. Background Manulife Financial Corporation (“MFC”) is the largest life insurance company...
read moreInsurers must “avoid” obscure terms.
On April 20, 2017, Mr. Justice Kent of the BC Supreme Court ruled that vehicle damage arising from a lessee’s arson does not fall within the “conversion exclusion” clause in an ICBC Autoplan Optional Policy, and an innocent lessor may be entitled to coverage. CIT Financial Ltd. v. Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, 2017 BCSC 641, involved a coverage dispute for the alleged arson of a leased vehicle. The Court was asked to interpret the insured plaintiff’s insurance policy and, in particular, whether...
read more
