By: I. Jamie Arabi, Litigation Associate In Capital Sewer Servicing Inc v Crosslinx Transit Solutions Constructors,[1] the Court of Appeal for Ontario confirmed that covenants to insure do not, as matter of law, mean the covenantor agrees to assume the insured risk....
By: Christiaan A. Jordaan, Partner Common law courts have developed a variety of fairness doctrines under the rubric of “estoppel” that preclude reneging on express or implied assurances.[1] The Supreme Court of Canada’s recent decision in Trial Lawyers Assn of...
By: Dylan J. Cox, Litigation Associate Introduction The Alberta Court of Appeal (ABCA) has released a decision reiterating how important it is for insureds to act promptly if they wish to oppose a position taken by their insurer. In Lafferty v. Co-operators,[1] the...
By: Liam Thompson, Litigation Associate Last year, the Superior Court of Justice released MDS Inc v Factory Mutual Insurance Company.[1] This decision generated much interest, as many thought that its key holding—that loss of use could constitute “physical damage”,...
By: Liam Thompson, Litigation Associate In AIG Insurance Company v Lloyd’s Underwriters,[1] the Superior Court provides guidance with respect to the appropriate use of an expert’s report on a duty to defend application. Background The Forget family bought land in...
By: I. Jamie Arabi, Litigation Associate The Court of Appeal for Ontario has issued the highly anticipated decision in MDS Inc v Factory Mutual Insurance Company. Last year, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice awarded prejudgment interest based on the insured’s...
