When multiple commercial insurers are on the hook consecutively for long-tail claims spanning decades, defence costs should be allocated according to the proportion of time they were on risk, the Ontario Appeal Court ruled this week. The court’s landmark decision…
It’s going to take a trial to decide whether or not Co-operators General Insurance Company owes a duty to defend in a complicated legal case concerning a 2015 gas explosion that happened on a construction site at the Bow River…
Intact Insurance does not have a duty to defend a man with schizophrenia who stabbed the owner of a firearms store while in the grip of a psychotic delusion, Ontario’s Court of Appeal has ruled. Brett Butterfield suffered a psychotic…
Quebec’s Court of Appeal has rejected Traveler’s challenge of a Wellington-style motion that requires the insurer to defend a construction contractor in a “your work” exclusion case against Quebec’s attorney general. The appeal court also rejected Tuesday Traveler’s motion to…
Quebec has taken a big step towards aligning its duty to defend rules with those of other Canadian provinces, meaning certain insurance contracts in Quebec will be exempt from a legal requirement to pay for insurance defence costs above and…
Quebec’s Superior Court notes an insurer will almost always have a duty to defend an insured in disputes over policy exclusions for “professional activities.” “A review of the case law dealing with exclusion for ‘professional activities’ reveals that, in almost…
A recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision, in which a fan was injured by a hockey puck during a game, may lead to a shift toward joint claims handling at the outset of a claim when two insurers are potentially…
The Court of Appeal for Ontario has affirmed the duty to defend in a recent case exploring if consequential or resulting damage attracts commercial general liability coverage. The decision is of interest because it negated the motion judge’s ruling, which seemed to be the first Canadian case to address if application of the “subcontractor exception” in the “your work” exclusion can be constrained by a finding that the subcontractor was engaged only as a supplier, and not a contractor.
A recent ruling out of British Columbia reviewed the duty to defend in the context of forced labour and slavery allegations. The case addresses a number of weighty coverage considerations, including the “mere possibility” test and derivative pleadings.