We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
In cooperation with Association of Corporate Counsel
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 676

Insurance coverage for contingent business interruption

  • Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • October 3 2008

The Court of Appeal decision of Neste Canada Inc. v. Allianz Insurance Co. of Canada, focused on the interpretation of a policy providing indemnity for business interruption and contingent business interruption

Insurer precluded from denying coverage to insured's employees despite a finding of no coverage under the policy

  • Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • October 3 2008

The 2006 decision of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench in McConnell v. Aviva Insurance Co. of Canada Ltd. ("McConnell"), serves as an interesting commentary on the potential liability of insurers with respect to unsatisfied judgments obtained against their insureds

Of punitive, compensatory and intentional damages

  • Robinson Sheppard Shapiro
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • October 27 2008

Last year we informed our readers of two judgments rendered by the Superior Court in the District of Chicoutimi in the matter of Lapierre and Axa v. Aménagements forestiers Ecoforêts

Exemplary award for invasion of privacy: in the wake of the decision Veilleux v. Compagnie d’assurance-vie Penncorp

  • Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • November 12 2008

On February 8, 2008, the Court of Appeal of Québec increased to $125,000 the award of exemplary damages against the Penncorp Life Insurance Company for filmed surveillance deemed inappropriate and abusive

No claim

  • Robinson Sheppard Shapiro
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • November 25 2008

The law of divided co-ownership (commonly known as condominium) is relatively young

Quebec Court of Appeal warns insurers to specify all the reasons for denial of coverage

  • Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • November 30 2008

Every so often over the past several decades, the Quebec Court of Appeal has reminded insurers that the omission to invoke a reason for denial of coverage in a timely manner can be fatal to the insurer

The Supreme Court of Canada narrows the scope of faulty design exclusions

  • Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • December 11 2008

Although they are in frequent use and well known to insurers and insureds in the construction industry, policy exclusions for “faulty or improper design” have been the focus of considerable debate in Canadian courts in recent years

Real estate title fraud and insurance: recent Ontario changes

  • McMillan LLP
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • November 16 2007

Over the past few years Ontario has been hit by a wave of fraudulent real estate transactions involving identity fraud; that is, people either forging or fraudulently conveying or mortgaging properties using the identity of the registered owner

Supreme Court clarifies the test for use and operation of motor vehicles in the third party context

  • Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • October 19 2007

In two unanimous decisions released October 19, 2007, the Supreme Court has reversed the majority position of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Herbison and Vytlingam and concluded that the use of the words “directly or indirectly” in section 239 (1) of the Insurance Act and the Family Protection Endorsement OPCF 44R does not eliminate the requirement of an unbroken chain of causation

Supreme Court of Canada affirms vicarious liability of leasing companies in motor vehicle accidents involving leased vehicle with option to purchase

  • Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • November 16 2007

The Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed that under British Columbia law finance companies may be vicariously liable for motor vehicle accidents when they finance a consumer’s acquisition of a motor vehicle through a “lease with an option to purchase” instead of a “contract of conditional sale”