|
I. INSURANCE ISSUES |
||
|
A. Where an insurer has failed to afford a
defence to its insured and the insured is successful in bringing
proceedings to enforce the insurer's obligations, the court can
and will award the insured a complete indemnity for both defence
expenses already incurred and the expense of enforcing compliance
with the policy terms.
|
Read More
B. The wording "as a result of a peril
insured against" in an insurance policy will be interpreted to
include damage that happens as a direct result of the insured peril
(increased cost to bring a damaged building up to code) but will
not include damage or perils that were simply discovered due to the
insured peril.
|
Roth v. Economical Mutual Insurance
Company, 2016 ABCA 399
[4216] |
|
|
||
|
A. The Ontario courts have set aside the
default judgment in Jane Doe 464533 v. D.(N.), 2016 ONSC
4920, which recognized the privacy tort of public disclosure of
embarrassing public facts and have allowed the defendant to defend
the case on its merits.
|
|
|
||
|
A. Regarding the defence of inevitable accident
due to a medical condition, certain circumstances give rise to a
presumption that the defendant drove negligently and the defendant
needs expert medical evidence that causally links his or her
medical condition with the accident.
|
|
Read More |
||
|
A. The doctrine of abuse of process does not
preclude re-litigation of the issue of whether or not an individual
was insured in a priority dispute between insurers in the face of
that individual's having been convicted of driving without
insurance.
|
|
B. In an action by homeowners against a chimney
sweep, it was held that deficiencies in the plaintiffs' expert
Investigation and reports deprived the court and the other trial
experts from being able to determine what actually happened such
that the plaintiffs were unable to prove their case.
|
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.
