Today the Ontario Superior Court released its decision in the
case of Heffernan Estate v. Lloyd's Canada and
considered whether an insurer has a duty to defend when the policy
is limited in its express language to indemnification.
Heffernan was involved in a boating accident while his blood
alcohol level was well above the legal limit. Heffernan was
killed in the accident and his passenger sued his estate.
Heffernan's insurer, Lloyd's took the position that there
was no duty to indemnify Heffernan and relied on a policy exclusion
which stated that the insurer would not be liable to indemnify the
insured if the vessel was operated "illegally".
Justice Belobaba distinguished the within facts from those
before the Court of Appeal in Kereliuk v. Jevco. In
Kereliuk, the Court of Appeal ruled that the phrase
"authorized by law" (used in reference to driving an
automobile) was limited in scope to having a valid driver's
license and did not extend to other infractions that might affect
the legality of driving. Justice Belobaba found that
operating a boat while intoxicated was clearly in violation of the
criminal code and therefore the exclusion applied.
Lloyd's Canada also successfully advanced the position that
there was no duty to defend the Heffernan estate because there was
no duty to defend set out in the insuring agreement. The policy
provided: "We will settle or defend, as we consider
appropriate, any claim or suit asking for ... damages".
Justice Belobaba ruled that while there was some ambiguity in
the policy there was no express term in which the insurer agreed to
defend the insured. At best, there was an agreement to defend
"when appropriate" as determined by a reasonable exercise
of the insurer's discretion. The duty to defend does not
automatically flow from the duty to indemnify, but rather, must be
expressly set out in the insuring agreement.
In any event, Belobaba J. found that even if his interpretation
of the agreement was wrong that there would be no duty to defend,
as there was no duty to indemnify.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
Under B.C.'s former and current Limitation Act, the limitation period for a Plaintiff's claim can be extended on the basis of a Defendant having acknowledged in writing some liability for the cause of action.
Automobile drivers, like fine wine, tend to get better with age. Older drivers can draw on a wealth of experience from their years on the road to assist them when faced by a variety of dangerous conditions.
The insurance industry will be interested in Ledcor Construction Ltd v. Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Co because of principles the Supreme Court of Canada applied to the "faulty workmanship" exclusion in a Builders' Risk policy.
For the first time in BC, a Court has decided that an insured is entitled to special costs, rather than the lower tariff costs, solely because they were successful in a coverage action against their insurer.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).