Ontario court reiterates requirement to deliver all endorsements to insureds

The Ontario Court of Appeal has sent a warning shot across the bow to insurers: notifying an insured that an OPCF 28A Excluded Driver Endorsement has been issued is not sufficient; a copy of the actual endorsement must be sent to the insured to satisfy the requirements of the Insurance Act.
In GMAC Leasco Corporation v. Lombard Insurance, the Ontario Court of Appeal overturned a lower court decision that found Lombard didnt have to indemnify GMAC Leasco because the insurer had notified GMAC Leasco that an OPCF 28A Excluded Driver Endorsement was in place.
GMAC Leasco was the owner and lessor of a motor vehicle insured by Lombard. Two people leasing the GMAC Leasco vehicle, Angelique Saweczko and Marc ONeil Powell, arranged for insurance with Lombard and were both named insureds.
Powell, however, was an excluded driver. Both he and Sawecczko signed an OPCF 28A Excluded Driver Endorsement stating there would be no coverage under the policy whenever Powell operated the vehicle.
Lombard received a certificate of insurance noting the OPCF 28A had been issued, but it had never received a copy of the endorsement. The court did not hear any evidence that GMAC Leasco knew Powell was an excluded driver.
GMAC Leasco was sued when Powell got into an accident with the vehicle. Lombard denied coverage on the basis of the exclusion endorsement in place, as well as the fact that it had notified GMAC Leasco an OPCF 28A was in place.
But notification about the OPCF 28A is not enough, the Court of Appeal noted. Writing for the court, Ontario Court of Appeal Justice Robert Sharpe, said notification provisions in ss. 232(3) and (5) of the Insurance Act are clear: the insurer is normally required to deliver or mail a copy of (1) the policy and (2) every endorsement
By failing to deliver to [GMAC Leasco] a copy of the OPCF 28A Endorsement, [Lombard] failed to comply with the Insurance Act, s. 232(3).