Simon looking earnest in Preveza, Greece

Simon Shields, Lawyer

Legal Guides
tenant / small claims / welfare (ontario works) / odsp / human rights / employment / consumer /
collection agencies / criminal injuries compensation / sppa (admin law)
/ line fences / animal cruelty / dogs & cats / wild animal law (all Canada) / war

home / about / testimonials / conditions of guide use
Talk to the Lawyer
At 01 March 2019, after just over one year's medical leave,
Simon's law practice will re-open. Whoo-hoo ....!
- 12 February 2019


(what's this?)

Insurance - Bad Faith

Insurance - Relief from Forfeiture

Insurance - Standing of Judgment Creditor Against Debtor's Insurer

Insurance - Insurer's Duty of Good Faith to Insured Independent Cause of Action

Insurance - Duty to Defend

Insurance - Interpretation of Policy

Insurance - Subrogation - Counsel

Insurance - Subrogation - Not Against Own Insured

Insurance - Contractual Duty to Insure

Insurance - Duty to Defend

Insurance - Fortuity Principle

Insurance - Duty to Defend
Insurance - Subrogation - Duty of Counselb>

Insurance - Property

Insurance - Duty to Defend

Insurance - Insurer's Right to Defend - Conflict of Interest

Insurance - Relief from Forfeiture - Statutory Requirements

Insurance - Duty to Defend

Insurance - Duty of Good Faith - No Duty to Advise of Limitation Periods

Insurance - Interpretation


---------------------- Insurance / when two policies both claim to be 'excess insurance'

[6] The application judge began his analysis by noting the governing authority was the Supreme Court’s decision in Family Insurance Corp. v. Lombard Canada Ltd., 2002 SCC 48 (CanLII), [2002] 2 S.C.R. 695. He succinctly set out the facts and conclusion in that case.

------------------------------- Insurance

- insurance "fortuity principle":

[39] Sovereign submits that it is a well-established principle of insurance law that liability policies generally only cover losses from fortuitous events (accidental or unforeseen occurrences): Non-Marine Underwriters, Lloyd’s of London v. Scalera, 2000 S.C.C. 24 at paras. 68 and 69. The allegations against the OSPCA in the three contested claims allege that agents of the OSPCA willfully violated the law, intentionally violated the rights of the plaintiffs and/or intentionally caused them harm. Sovereign’s position is that not only are these allegations expressly excluded by the Sovereign Policy, they are also uninsurable in law.

[40] Sovereign relies on the Ontario Court of Appeal decision of Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Hollinger Inc., 2004 CanLII 10995 (ON CA), 2004 CanLII 10995 (ONCA), which applied the fortuity principle in the context of intentional torts and determined that there was no duty on the insurer to defend a claim for intentional discrimination. The Court recognized that for the purposes of insurance law, a distinction should be drawn between intentional conduct that results in unintended harm, and conduct where the kind of harm or loss was intended from the standpoint of the insured. The fortuity principle, as a matter of law, prevents an insured from recovering where the actual harm alleged was intended by the insurer.

.... same case at para 58 plus re insurer's duty to defend
Law Society Number #37308N / Website © Simon Shields 2005-2019