Can an insurer deny all Section B benefits if an insured agrees to attend an independent medical examination on conditions that conflict with the examining medical practitioner's protocol? The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench recently considered this question and answered in the affirmative. While the decision was specific to Section B claims, the broader takeaway is equally instructive: relying on the clear terms of a policy does not necessarily impugn the duty of utmost good faith.
The Ontario Court of Appeal has clarified its application of the Supreme Court's decision in Family Insurance Corp v Lombard Canada Ltd in instances of overlapping insurance policies with "other insurance clauses" covering the same loss. The court determined that the analysis in instances of overlapping coverage comes down to whether there was overlapping coverage and whether the insurers intended to limit their obligation to contribute, and by what method and in what circumstances, in relation to the insured.
A plaintiff recently claimed indemnification under a residential insurance policy when unknown persons broke into her garage and stole items, including prop guns. Although the court found that the plaintiff had an insurable interest in the prop guns, it found that she was not entitled to be indemnified for their loss because they belonged to another individual who had not been a roomer or boarder.
The Alberta Court of Appeal has revisited the question of directors' personal liability for injuries sustained in a workplace incident. The key question was whether a corporate representative was personally liable for damage resulting from their own tortious conduct while acting as a representative for the corporation. As the applicable tests for determining personal liability remain unclear, this will continue to be a difficult issue for directors to navigate.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice recently provided a comprehensive judicial review of a jurisdictional challenge to an arbitral award. This decision will be of interest not only to car manufacturers, but also to most parties subject to an arbitration agreement. However, the broader takeaway from this case is that non-compliance with the Arbitration Act is not a ground for review. Therefore, jurisdictional challenges must be brought at the beginning of hearings.