Legal Update
Bad Faith
Personal Injury
Insurance
Evidence
Most Recent Articles
Insurer’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...
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...
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...
read moreAn exclusion clause is only valid if it is unambiguous.
On September 16, 2008 the Alberta Court of Appeal confirmed in Duke v. Clarica Life Insurance Co. 2008 ABCA 301 that an ambiguous term in a critical illness policy exclusion clause should be construed against the insurer. The insurance company had issued a critical illness policy to Mr. Duke. When Mr. Duke developed Parkinson’s disease, the insurance company denied his claim, relying on an exclusion clause which stated: “if the insured person had a covered critical illness or any symptoms associated with a covered critical illness...
read moreManulife found to be a “bully” and ordered to pay $250,000 punitive damages.
On December 14, 2007, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld an order that The Manufacturers Life Insurance Company (“Manulife”) pay $250,000 in punitive damages.
read moreMental distress damages flow from a breach of the policy.
The Supreme Court of Canada set aside an award of punitive damages of $100,000 against a disability insurer (“Sun Life”), but upheld an award of $20,000 in aggravated damages for mental distress for breach of contract. Fidler worked as a bank receptionist and was covered by a group policy that included long-term disability benefits. At the age of 36, she became ill and was eventually diagnosed with chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia and began receiving long-term disability benefits in January 1991. Under the terms of the...
read moreManulife wrong to deny disability benefits for chronic fatigue.
On November 28, 2005 the BC Supreme Court decided that The Manufacturers Life Insurance Company (“Manulife”) was wrong to deny long term disability benefits to a woman suffering from chronic fatigue syndrome. The case was called Milner v. Manufacturers Life Insurance Company, 2005 BCSC 1661. In September 2001, Cindy Milner, age 45, was hired as a manager at a residential care facility for the elderly. She was responsible for managing nurses, care aids and related staff and ensuring that the facility had all the necessary supplies....
read moreManulife’s conduct costs UBC punitive damages.
The British Columbia Court of Appeal upheld an award of $150,000 in punitive damages and $35,000 in aggravated damages against the University of British Columbia (UBC) in Asselstine v. Manulife and UBC, 2005 BCCA 292. The decision sends a strong message to insurers and raises questions about the relationship between employers and third parties hired to administer benefit plans. This case concerned a registered nurse who had been employed by UBC for several years. In March 1997, she was diagnosed as suffering from multiple sclerosis. She took...
read moreFailing to disclose prior drug use is not fraud.
On November 23, 2004, the BC Supreme Court found against Manulife Financial, and ordered it to pay death benefits to a widow, in Metcalfe v Manufacturers Life Insurance Company, 2004 BCSC 1526. An insured (“Mr. Metcalfe”), who died of a drug overdose, had purchased a life insurance policy seven years before his death. Although he did not disclose to the life insurance company that he had been in a drug treatment program for cocaine and heroin use three years before obtaining the policy, the life insurance policy was determined to...
read moreManulife’s conduct led to order for “double costs”.
On March 19, 2002, the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench ordered Manulife to pay benefits under an accidental death policy, and to pay double costs to the plaintiff in McCoy v Manulife, 2002 ABQB 298. The plaintiff’s brother, Ward McCoy, was covered through his employment by a policy of life insurance and accidental death insurance provided by Manufacturers Life Insurance Company. The plaintiff, Keith McCoy, was the beneficiary of the policy. The brother died on the 23rd of June, 1997. He had been drinking over a three-day period. Twelve...
read more
