Articles 2024

Another successful term for the Insurance Law Section draws to a close, and we welcome our incoming chair, Amanda McBride.

As of January, 2016, there is a conflict of judicial opinion about whether the two-year limitation period in section 18 runs from the date of service of the claim, unaffected by discoverability.

Weather Attribution is a broad term encapsulating many scientific disciplines that seek to ultimately link climate change to specific weather events. As a scientific field, it is rarely seen within litigation matters, but it has manifested itself in the insurance industry, as insurers have found utility in this science for several years now, when dealing with issues related to weather events.

Two cases decided within the last year have confirmed that an insurer that adds itself as a Third Party pursuant to Section 258 (14) of the Insurance Act (the off-coverage insurer) is required to answer questions and disclose information in relation to the insurer’s off-coverage position.

When an organized liquor-filled party takes place on a bus, does responsibility rest on the “party” or on the “bus”?

We are pleased to announce that John A. McLeish, Co-Founder, McLeish Orlando LLP, is a winner of the 2016 OBA Award for Excellence in Insurance Law.

Debra E. Rolph of LawPRO has authored a paper concerning notable insurance limitation period cases and also discusses some outstanding “problem” areas. Ms. Rolph’s paper has been divided into 4 parts: Part 1: Discoverability; Part 2: Pleadings and Procedural Issues; Part 3: Insurance Contracts; and Part 4: “Problem” Areas and Conclusion.

In 2015, the Courts continued to build on the limitations law decided in previous years, not only concerning discoverability generally, but also in the context of professional malpractice, disability insurance, OPCF 44R and uninsured motorist coverages, and relief from forfeiture. The Court of Appeal definitively determined that laches has no application to claims governed by the Limitations Act 2002.

Discussions concerning insurance contracts including: Contracting Out; Disability Insurance; OPCF 44R and Unidentified, Uninsured Claims; Comprehensive Policies – Casualty Coverage; SABs; Relief from Forfeiture; Laches and Acquiescence in the Insurance Context; and Estoppel and Fraudulent Concealment.

This Court of Appeal decision arises as a result of the Defendant insurer’s denial of the Plaintiff’s claim under the Uninsured Automobile Coverage provisions of his auto insurance policy. The Defendant alleged that the Plaintiff had failed to comply with the reporting requirements pursuant to the policy. The Plaintiff sought relief from forfeiture.