Patterson Insurance Pulse

Author: Created: 2/23/2012 4:35 PM RssIcon
Insurance Law Blog
By pipblogger on 2/20/2014 3:43 PM
As previously discussed, the ‘rules of the road’ do not always determine who may be found liable for accidents which occur when drivers overtake and pass one another – a determination of liability typically requires a close examination of the facts surrounding the particular accident.
By pipblogger on 2/6/2014 1:11 PM
The Nova Scotia Motor Vehicle Act has a variety of provisions which set out a driver’s various obligations when travelling on Nova Scotia’s highways, including provisions which specifically address a driver’s obligations when overtaking and passing another vehicle on the road and when being overtaken and passed by another vehicle on a road.  Those obligations are dependent upon the nature of a driver’s intended action, and are dependent upon where that intended action is going to happen.
By pipblogger on 1/16/2014 2:25 PM
Rob Purdy, Partner with Patterson Law, with the assistance of Cassandra Armsworthy, Articled Clerk, take a look at the standard of disclosure in insurance applications following the 2013 Manitoba Court of Appeal decision in Badenhorst v Great-West Life Assurance Co. Read the full article in the December edition of Insurance Business magazine – HERE.
By pipblogger on 1/9/2014 2:10 PM
Under insurance legislation, all motorists are required to carry a mandatory minimum amount of insurance against liability resulting from bodily injury or death, which is currently set at $500,000 in Nova Scotia. However, this minimum amount may not cover the extent of the damages recoverable by an injured party in a motor vehicle accident. To protect against insufficient insurance coverage, motorists can purchase additional insurance from their own insurers, known as an SEF 44 Endorsement. This add-on to a Standard Automobile Policy provides a motorist with extra coverage in the event that they are involved in an accident with someone whose coverage is insufficient to compensate them fully for their injuries (up to the limits of the particular SEF 44 Endorsement).
By pipblogger on 2/12/2013 1:26 PM
The decision in Laushway v. Messervey, 2013 NSSC 47, was released on February 8, 2013. Upon the defendants’ motion, Justice Heather Robertson ordered the plaintiff to turn over his computer hard drive to the defendants in order for an expert to perform metadata analysis.

Metadata is frequently defined as “data about data”, and is preserved on computer systems apart from the users’ conscious activity.

In this case, the plaintiff alleged that an injury suffered in a motor vehicle accident impeded his ability to work at his internet-based business apart from short periods. The plaintiff had refused to produce the hard drive, citing privacy issues and characterizing the request as a “fishing expedition”.

For the motion, both parties obtained expert evidence from computer professionals in support of their respective positions....
By pipblogger on 12/3/2012 3:44 PM
In a decision that has been widely discussed among lawyers, the British Columbia Court of Appeal recently held in Poole v. Lombard General Insurance Company of Canada that a law firm’s professional insurance policy did not cover a case dating back to 2001 and involving an articling student who sustained a mild brain injury when a lawyer in her law firm fell on her while intoxicated at a bar.
By pipblogger on 11/7/2012 4:20 PM
The recent British Columbia Supreme Court case of Peebles v. The Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co. involved a house fire which occurred in 2008. The home had been purchased in 2006 by two insureds, one of whom, Peebles, never lived at the property. The other insured, Quinn, had lived there full time for a period, but then met a girlfriend with whom he stayed most of the time. Peebles knew about this arrangement and would check on the property about three times a week. Meanwhile, Quinn’s relationship with his girlfriend was somewhat unstable and he was of the view that he may end up moving back to his property.
By pipblogger on 7/3/2012 8:18 AM

 The concept of causation is central to a determination of negligence. It is the necessary link between the breach of an existing duty of care and damages, as any first-year law student can recite.

Nonetheless, establishing the test for causation has often led courts into difficult terrain, and in Clements v. Clements 2012 SCC 32, the Supreme Court of Canada overturned the Court of Appeal of British Columbia's decision, which had dismissed the trial decision in favour of the Plaintiff. The Supreme Court ordered a new trial.

By pipblogger on 6/4/2012 10:20 AM
A recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision, Lloyd v. Bush, raises an issue of potential interest to insurers across Canada. In the trial decision in that case, the judge had repeatedly pressed plaintiff's counsel to say that he was alleging fraud against a municipality where a witness had been called the accuracy of some business records into question. Plaintiff's counsel repeatedly denied that any allegation of fraud was being made against the defendant. In concluding that a new trial was warranted, the Court of Appeal stated, 

“If the trial judge’s approach is correct, every time a particular expert testified that the recorded notes do not reflect what actually happened, it would be tantamount to an allegation of fraud against the author of the notes. What was raised here by the expert witness, Bender, were everyday issues of reliability and credibility, not fraud. When a witness, on behalf of a corporation, government,...
By pipblogger on 4/20/2012 2:49 PM
Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda involved two separate actions arising out of two different incidents that occurred in Cuba. In the first case, a woman suffered catastrophic injuries when a metal structure on the beach at the SuperClubs Breezes Jibacoa resort (managed by Club Resorts) collapsed. She became paraplegic as a result of this incident. In the second case, a man died during a scuba diving excursion while staying at Breezes Costa Verde, also managed by Club Resorts). Both claims were brought in Ontario against a number of defendants, including the defendant Club Resorts. The defendant wished to block the Ontario actions, alleging that the Ontario courts did not have jurisdiction and, in the alternative, arguing the doctrine of forum non conveniens. The motions judges in both cases found that the Ontario courts had jurisdiction and that the Ontario court was more appropriate. Both cases were appealed together...