Lafond v. Allstate Insurance Company of Canada — The plaintiff sought accident benefits from his insurer for injuries he suffered in a road-rage related assault that arose as a result of encounter described as erratic driving that took place on the road between two drivers. The Judge concluded that the act of the assailant is the dominant feature of causation to which the use or operation of a motor vehicle was only incidental. Furthermore, he concluded that the plaintiff hitting his head against the automobile when falling was only a contributing factor to the extent of his injuries but was not the direct cause.
Thomas Roger Bennett v. Pembridge Insurance Company — Defendant's right to trial of liability issues by jury not outweighed by concerns of duplication in expert evidence and delays necessary to hear catastrophic impairment issue. Trial to proceed in two steps: the first, determination of catastrophic impairment, in front of judge alone; and the second, the remainder of the tort and accident benefits claims. Judge finding that a determination on the catastrophic impairment issue would narrow, or even resolve, the issues in the tort action.
The insured's home suffered water damage as a result of a faulty plumbing system. The insurer denied coverage on the grounds that the damage had been causes by continuous damage from the plumbing. Justice M.E. Graham determined that the insurance contract's exclusion for continuous damage was clearly drafted and so the only issue before the court was whether the damage suffered was a result of continuous damage. Justice Graham concluded that it was not a continuous leak, as the leak was remedied as soon as it was discovered and the insured exercised the proper diligence.
State Farm v. Pembridge/Allstate — Arbitrator finding insurer entitled to give notice of priority dispute beyond the 90 day limitation period on grounds that 90 days was insufficient amount of time to complete investigation.
After the matter had been set for trial the Defendant sought to conduct a psychiatric medical examination. The plaintiff agreed to attend the examination so long as it was video-recorded. Although the defendant agreed to the plaintiffs' terms, upon contacting four psychiatrists and four medical centres the defendant was informed that all refused to conduct a video-recorded psychiatric exam. Master Brott determined that in the interest of fairness the plaintiff would be ordered to attend a non-video-recorded exam.
The Ontario Court of Appeal finds that new evidence that insured succeeded to set aside his criminal convictions fell short of meeting the onus required to set aside a civil settlement and consent dismissal.
The Ontario Divisional Court upholds trial judge’s finding that the purported assignment was invalid and that there was no evidence of negligence.
Arbitrator awards insurer expenses at the maximum ratio of 4:1 which worked out to $9,864.77 where insured committed fraud against insurer.
