Inc, and Wayne Wald, (3rd) Andreas Pizza Mill Ltd v The meaning which the language can reasonably bear AND which makes the most commercial Sovereign General Insurance sense will be preferred. Palliser Regional (School) The exclusion must be interpreted within the contract as a trial. The pollution was not a result of Division #26 v Aviva Scottish the business activities of A, and as such the exclusion does not apply. & York Insurance Co Limited Chapter 7: The Proximate Conundrum Thompson v Montreal If the proximate cause falls within the policy coverage, its consequences are also covered. Insurance Company Leyland Shipping v Norwich The proximate cause is not the nearest in time, but the most efficient and predominant. Union Fire Insurance Society Ford Motor Co of Canada v Liability for consequences of the proximate cause may be negated by a properly framed clause of Prudential Assurance Co exclusion, in which case it not significant whether those causes are proximate or not. Wayne Tank and Pump Co If there are two causes and the proximate cause is excluded, no coverage. If they are nearly equal Ltd v Employers’ Liability and one is excluded, also no coverage. Assurance Corpn Ltd Pavlovic v Economical If damage caused indirectly by an excluded cause is to be covered, the exclusion wording must Mutual Insurance Co clearly say so. Canevada Country Directly does not mean proximately, it refers to an event that leads immediately to its consequence. Communities Inc v GAN Canada Insurance Co CCR Fishing Ltd and Bank of If the loss would not have happened but for an act/event fortuitous in the sense of not expected in Montreal v British Reserve the ordinary course of things, it is fortuitous. Insurance Co Ltd et al Triple Five Corp v Simcoe & If the excluded peril is essential to the chain of causation leading to the loss, there was no liability. Fire Group 539938 Ontario Limited v The SCC declines to adopt the presumption that where there are concurrent causes, all coverage is Derksen et al ousted if one of the concurrent causes is an excluded peril. Placing the Risk Chapter 8: of the Risk Dobson v Sotheby A substantially accurate description which does not affect the scope of risk will not affect validity of a policy.
Inc, and Wayne Wald, (3rd) Andreas Pizza Mill Ltd v Sovereign General Insurance The meaning which the language can reasonably bear AND which makes the most commercial sense will be preferred. Palliser Regional (School) Division #26 v Aviva Scottish & York Insurance Co Limited The exclusion must be interpreted within the contract as a The pollution was not a result of the business activities of A, and as such the exclusion does not apply. Chapter 7: The Proximate Conundrum Thompson v Montreal Insurance Company If the proximate cause falls within the policy coverage, its consequences are also covered. Leyland Shipping v Norwich Union Fire Insurance Society The proximate cause is not the nearest in time, but the most efficient and predominant. Ford Motor Co of Canada v Prudential Assurance Co Liability for consequences of the proximate cause may be negated by a properly framed clause of exclusion, in which case it not significant whether those causes are proximate or not. Wayne Tank and Pump Co Ltd v Employers’ Liability Assurance Corpn Ltd If there are two causes and the proximate cause is excluded, no coverage. If they are nearly equal and one is excluded, also no coverage. Pavlovic v Economical Mutual Insurance Co If damage caused indirectly by an excluded cause is to be covered, the exclusion wording must clearly say so. Canevada Country Communities Inc v GAN Canada Insurance Co Directly does not mean proximately, it refers to an event that leads immediately to its consequence. CCR Fishing Ltd and Bank of Montreal v British Reserve Insurance Co Ltd et al If the loss would not have happened but for an act/event fortuitous in the sense of not expected in the ordinary course of things, it is fortuitous. Triple Five Corp v Simcoe & Fire Group If the excluded peril is essential to the chain of causation leading to the loss, there was no liability. 539938 Ontario Limited v Derksen et al The SCC declines to adopt the presumption that where there are concurrent causes, all coverage is ousted if one of the concurrent causes is an excluded peril. Placing the Risk Chapter 8: of the Risk Dobson v Sotheby A substantially accurate description which does not affect the scope of risk will not affect validity of a policy. trial.
Doyle%20&%20Lamb_97_Fall_2017_Alex_Fernet_Brochu.docx