News & Blog
Featured News
Insurance - On the Docket
-
In Canada, numerous class proceedings have launched on behalf of governments and individuals against entities involved in the manufacture and distribution of opioids. These actions claim wrongful acts and damages that extend over 23 years, raising important legal questions for the insurers of these entities as to the extent of their obligation to defend the proceedings on behalf of their insureds.
On September 3, 2021, the Ontario Court of Appeal (“ONCA”) released its decision in MDS Inc v Factory Mutual Insurance Company, which considered the proper interpretation of corrosion exclusions and resulting damage exceptions in standard-form property and casualty insurance policies.
Last Friday, the Supreme Court of Canada released its long-awaited decision in the case of Moore v Sweet, and settled a troubling issue in the trusts and estates world: the case of the disappointed life insurance beneficiary.
“Disappointed beneficiary” claims over life insurance proceeds have resulted in a complex body of case law combining elements of family law, trusts and insurance law.
As regulatory investigations and litigation against corporate directors and officers become increasingly complex and extensive, insurance policies covering defence costs are all the more important. But how far does this coverage stretch? The recent decision of Liberty Silver v Liberty Insurance demonstrates the significant value these policies can provide in covering an early and proactive legal defence. The court rejected the Insurer’s narrow and technical interpretation of the insurance policy, and affirmed that legal costs incurred on behalf of senior officers and directors to respond to an Investigative Order by security regulators, even before any formal charges or accusations were laid, were covered.
Sometimes small disputes about technical matters unearth deeper truths about how the law works. This happened in a decision released on January 27, 2017 by the Supreme Court of Canada. Sabean v Portage La Prairie Mutual Insurance Co on its face concerned a narrow issue of interpretation defining amounts payable under automobile insurance policies. In resolving this issue, the Court bumped into a much more general issue concerning whether and how jurisprudence influences the meaning of words used in private contracts.
A recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal makes the question of who you trust with your car more difficult to answer.
The recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court in Versa Fittings v. Berkley Insurance Co. (2015 ONSC 1756) reinforces that a Rule 21 motion is an expedient way to secure a ruling on whether an insurers duty to defend has been triggered.
The Court of Appeal recently released a decision that serves as a reminder to all counsel: never lose sight of who you act for.
