When does the limitation period begin to run in duty to defend or duty to indemnify cases?
In Georgian Downs Ltd. v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., 2013 ONSC 2110 (S.C.J.), the applicant sought an Order compelling State Farm to pay its defence costs. Georgian was a defendant in a slip and fall action, and State Farm insured Georgian's winter maintenance contractor. Georgian was added as an additional insured to the contractor's policy. The underlying claim was ultimately settled on the basis of the contractor's admission of liability.
One of the issues was when the limitation period began to run. Although counsel exchanged correspondence back and forth about defence costs, there was no clear and unequivocal denial of Georgian's request for defence costs.
Justice Mulligan held that "when there is an absence of a clear and unequivocal denial of a duty to defend or a duty to indemnify, a limitation period commences on the day of judgment or settlement." Using such an interpretation promotes certainly, since it fixes a readily ascertainable date, rather than being dependent on subjective questions of discoverability.
Presumably, if the facts were different and State Farm had clearly denied the request to pay defence costs, the limitation period would have commenced at that time.
Home »
Duty to Defend »
Limitation Periods »
Limitation Periods in Duty to Defend or Indemnify Cases
Wednesday, 15 May 2013
Limitation Periods in Duty to Defend or Indemnify Cases
Artikel Terkait Limitation Periods in Duty to Defend or Indemnify Cases :
The Test to Determine Whether an Insured "Permitted" the Unauthorized use of a Motor Vehicle A recent decision looked at the test to determine whether an insured permitted someone else to drive his vehicle when she was n ...
Limitations periods for claims of negligent supervision allowing sexual assaults to occur Choc v. Hudbay Minerals Inc., [2013] O.J. No. 3375 (S.C.J.) is a case that may be of interest to institutional defendants of se ...
Insurer Obligated to Continue Paying Defence Costs Jevco v. Malaviya,2013 ONSC 675 (S.C.J.).Malaviya was insured under a Standard Automobile Policy (SAP) with Jevco for the minim ...
Court of Appeal Rejects Discoverability ArgumentA recent example shows that the new summary judgment rule may be used in cases where plaintiffs claim they did not discover they ...
Excess InsuranceExcess insurers may be interested in the recently reported decision of ACE INA Insurance v. Associated Electric & Gas Insuran ...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment