Canadian Underwriter
News

Supreme Court’s 2007 rulings on “indirect use of an auto” favour ING in Alberta Court of Appeal


June 4, 2008   by Canadian Underwriter


Print this page Share

The Supreme Court of Canada’s decisions in the twin 2007 cases of Herbison and Vytlingham have already changed the fate of a case in the Court of Appeal in Alberta.
The Court of Appeal of Alberta has granted the appeal of ING Insurance Company of Canada in a case that tested the insurer’s policy definition of the “use or operation” of an insured motor vehicle.
The case, which went to trial prior to Herbison and Vytlingham, previously required ING to defend and indemnify an insured involved in a murder-suicide inside the cab of a pick-up truck.
The insured, Grant Harder, shot and killed his son, Cole Evan Harder, and then himself when they were both inside the cab of Grant’s pick-up truck.
Cole’s mother, Naomi Manuel, sued Grant Harder for the psychological injuries she suffered as a result of the shooting.
Harder’s vehicle insurance policy provided liability insurance for claims “arising from the ownership, use or operation of the automobile.”
A trial judge found the policy wording triggered ING’s defense and indemnity obligations, but the Court of Appeal found that, in light of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Herbison and Vytlingham, ING was not required to defend the claim.
“We concludethat the factors recited [by Harder’s mother] do not either alone or in combination meet the [Supreme Court’s] requirements for causation,” the Court of Appeal found. “They do not show an unbroken causal chain connecting the operation of the truck to the tragic shooting of Cole Harder.”


Print this page Share

Have your say:

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*