Canadian coverage, focused on policy wording, with verified short holdings, original analysis and links to the underlying sources. A publication date isn't the same as a decision date. The dates below identify which is shown.
22 verified publications. Showing the 22 most recent.
Reporting a collision and vehicle damage didn't notify Intact that the insured intended to claim statutory accident benefits. Ontario's Court of Appeal restored the tribunal's rejection of a claim made much later, while confirming that a reasonable explanation can excuse late notice under the regulations.
The Divisional Court upheld the refusal of catastrophic accident benefits where the recalculated impairment remained below the 55% threshold. It accepted the tribunal's use of more recent clinical findings and its authority to correct technical rating errors without a new hearing.
A CT confirmed brain contusion cannot be treated as a minor injury simply because Ontario's accident benefits rules mention contusions. The Divisional Court overturned the tribunal's interpretation and took the insured out of the $3,500 Minor Injury Guideline.
Manitoba's life insurance proof requirements don't prevent a reasonable civil fraud inquiry. A policy authorization let BMO require answers, but the court found no fraud or final entitlement to $300,000.
A vacant building's exposed rear wall breached its policy warranty despite repairs to a front fence. The insurer owed no indemnity for the fire, but repayment and final costs remained unresolved.
Canadian renewal rates are falling, but US exposure, rebuilding exclusions and climate pressures complicate what those savings mean.
Credit and loan insurance can protect a specified debt after disability or illness, but definitions, payment limits and exclusions matter. It isn't interchangeable with disability income coverage.
The Supreme Court allowed coverage for replacing windows scratched during cleaning under this builders' risk policy. The faulty workmanship exclusion applied to the cost of redoing the cleaning, not to replacement of the damaged windows.
Ontario's July 2026 benefit changes make customer elections, renewal evidence and listed driver eligibility critical to a reliable claim decision.
September’s Canadian insurance developments didn’t point to one national legal rule. They pointed to something more useful: outcomes are increasingly turning on the exact operational detail, from notice requirements and disclosure duties to endorsements, approved forms and capital treatment.
British Columbia’s Court of Appeal dismissed an insureds’ appeal where an undisclosed marihuana grow operation had been found to be a material change in risk. The materiality and nondisclosure findings were not challenged on appeal and were enough to resolve the coverage dispute.
Ontario’s Court of Appeal held that a mandatory mortgage broker fraud endorsement covered client money misappropriated while it was held in trust for a proposed mortgage transaction. The regulatory purpose of the required insurance mattered to how the policy was read.
Panasonic’s ransomware response costs attracted the cyber policy endorsement’s US$3 million retention even though it paid no ransom and claimed under broader coverage. Ontario’s Court of Appeal allowed XL’s appeal, leaving the approximately US$2 million claim entirely within Panasonic’s retention.
The most important insurance conversation often happens before anything goes wrong, when someone still has time to understand what the policy is actually designed to do.
Ontario’s Court of Appeal sent a greenhouse coverage dispute back for trial after finding that the earlier analysis focused too narrowly on the immediate cause of the crop loss.
The Supreme Court held that guaranteed rebuilding coverage increased the amount available to rebuild a destroyed home but did not erase a separate exclusion for added legal compliance costs.
The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the statutory no change in insurability requirement is a condition for a life insurance contract to take effect and is distinct from the later contestability rules.
The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld coverage after finding no substantial breach of the insured’s duty to cooperate and no error in applying a notice cure without insurer prejudice.
The Supreme Court dismissed homeowners' appeal, holding that a guaranteed rebuilding cost endorsement increased available insurance limits but did not displace the policy's separate exclusion for costs of complying with conservation authority rules. A limited $10,000 extension remained, and two judges dissented in part.
All-perils property coverage generally covers fortuitous direct physical loss or damage unless excluded, subject to the complete policy.
An insurance binder is temporary evidence that an insurer has agreed to provide specified coverage before the full policy document is issued.
Named-perils policies cover listed causes of loss; all-risk forms generally cover direct physical loss unless an exclusion applies.
See how a weekly briefing brings relevant developments together. Choose your divisions and jurisdictions before deciding whether membership is useful for you.
A preview doesn't enroll you in email. Optional delivery requires a separate choice.